If Congress makes good on its promise to repeal parts of Obamacare, by 2019 an estimate 2.55 million Texans would no longer have coverage, resulting in greater financial pressure on local governments, healthcare providers and the insured, according to a new public health study.

Sections

Latest Stories

Saturday is the opening of the second part of the divided season on ducks in the South Zone, which includes all of the coastal and adjoining counties. It could not come at a better time as conditions have changed dramatically from two weeks ago when the first part of the season closed.

It looks like Santa will be taking a different route this year. The Santa Hustle race series, known for dressing its participants in Santa hats and fluffy white beards, has developed a new course for its Galveston race, scheduled for Dec. 18.

Sections

Latest Stories

Today, marks a century since the passing of Nicholas Joseph Clayton, the premier architect of historic Galveston. The island wouldn't be the place it is without his legacy of talent which continues to influence building design today.

Sections

Latest Stories

Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote that “The world will be saved by beauty,” which leads us to ask two rhetorical questions: first, does this mean that the world is lost and, second, is ugliness to blame for its condition? Rhetorical questions require no answer, but what we can see for ourselves is that in their multiple forms — artistic, personal and moral — beauty and ugliness contend for cultural supremacy. Today the general consensus among humanistic thinkers is that a “cult of ugliness” prevails.

203 comments:

While I despise the amount of debt we've run up over the past decade or so, when it comes to the "Too Big to Fail" bailouts, I'm not sure that there's any concensus on what would have been a better alternative. Certainly, if there was a better option, we'd think the Bush administration would have done it when AIG was about to fail. The process to bailout GM and Chrysler was begun under the Bush Administration, too.

The failures of the auto companies and the financial service companies was neither Bush's nor Obama's fault. The companies mismanaged themselves to the point of disaster.

The story that the economists had us believe, and Republican and Democratic leaders seemed to buy into, was that the economic impact of letting those companies fail would have been far greater than the costs of bailing them out. While controversial, having Treasury assuming equity ownership of these companies as collateral on the loans was responsible. I'd never give billions of my money to someone without something tangible to, hopefully, protect my investment.

Taking the bailouts out of the equation, and the rest of the debt increase is somewhat in line with his predecessor. While both Bush and Obama should bear a lot of responsibility for the failure to take control of the deficits, they were both aided greatly by very irresponsible congresses.

I would really love it if we could get people in charge in DC that are truly serious about managing the budget a lot more like the family budgets it entails. If you have to buy something that you can't afford today, borrowing is fine IF you also establish a COMMITED plan for how you will repay it.

Your comments come straight from Fox News. The facts of this Presidency does not agree with your slanted view of reality. If picking apart each of your negative talking points would help you to realize how off the mark you are about this President and his achievements, I would. But your hatred for this President is not seeded in the truth, for this, I feel sad for you.

Where does one begin to try to respond to a letter that is not based on any political fact nor logic, but rather emotion? It's almost like it's written from someone from a college Young Republican group who sits in the back of the room, holds no position in the organization, but is kept in the organization for entertainment purpose by occasionally blowing smoke and saying outrageous things.

"Bowed down to enemies" - As of now, I believe most political pundits appreciate the way he is currently dealing with Putin. At least that's what I saw on Stephanopulus show last Sunday. "New businesses can't be formed" - I heard that in his new budget, Obama has called for expansion of early education programs and job training. Also, over 3 hundred billion dollars for road repair - to help with new transit projects. He's also funded for job training for folks who can potentially work on small farms, which are in need of employees. "Reduced military spending"?? - I read in early March that the White House is trying to reverse Pentagon cuts, even though Afghanistan and Iraq are transitioning into peacetime footing. Reason: executive branch is realizing that the uncertainty in Russia/Ukraine warrants reconsideration in budget proposal processes.

As you see, I have illustrated a few arguable facts in the above paragraph, as opposed to emotion and hyperbole. Perhaps more letters can be printed that can encourage debate rather than emotions toward paper tigers with no teeth.

I agree 100% with Jake Feigle. I was wondering how the Leftist readers would respond to it. sverige, you were looking at Obama's supporters on Stephanopulus' program who like you will never say anything bad about the president. Even President Bill Clinton has started questioning Obama's decisions. Look at International News and see what the rest of the world thinks about us now. drumb47, it is not hatred for this president but sadness for this once great nation that we voice. kevjlang, Bush should never have passed the first stimulus package. Those companies should have filed for bankruptcy then reorganized. But then Union contracts would have to be re-written. The Unions controlled that mess, not the economists.The United States was once a SUPERPOWER. Obama is the KRYPTONITE.

"Inviting another Pearl Harbor"? No that has already been done by Bush and 9/11. What has Congress accomplished other than to tie the country up with vote after vote against anything Obama has proposed. How much money has been wasted on votes to repeal the ACA (a Republican idea by the way), Benghazi (hey where was the Right when over 200 Marines died in 1983 in Lebanon and President Reagan cut and ran? There are many more examples of working against the President without the slightest bit of willingness to work on compromises that would help the country. When Mitch McConnell stated in 2010 his only job is to make Obama a one term President it showed exactly the only thing that mattered to the Right.

“It would be nice if it were cut and dry, however you are one of the many that believes it's one side or the other. No, it's them (Republicans & Democrats) against us (we the people)!Until this country wakes up and realizes that...we are all doomed! They want us divided, easier to conquer the masses!”

Large money controls the policies of the U.S.A.. How much foreign aid do we supply to the world. As long as this is the case we will get what we pay for. “He has reduced our military at a time the entire world is in jeopardy of war”, We are moving away from so many boots on the ground, toward a time of drones and computer type of defense‘s. So are need’s are less men and woman.“In the last few months of 2013 the United States Army was introduced to the latest form of Drone Warfare. Ten of the new XCADD‘s (eXperimental Coleopter Area Defense Drone) were given field and combat trials by the 16th Infantry Regiment (Paktika province, Afghanistan) and the 32nd Infantry Regiment (Al Anbar province, Iraq). The trials and the Drones are listed in DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) files under “Project Overwatch”.With the success of the drone program used by the United States Airforce for both reconnaissance and the engaging of hostile targets DARPA was approached by the United States Army to develop a small, lightweight drone that could be carried and operated by a single member of an infantry platoon”

I notice that you people always talk about his achievements and yet you never list any of them that are actually achievements. Lang always excuses Obama with his off-handed mention of things always starting with Bush, failing to mention that virtually every action started under Bush has been magnified by Obama.

Here's some of your president's achievements.

6 MILLION previously insured people forced off their current policies by obamacare.3 MILLION (if you can believe HHS and the White House) "enrolled" in obamacare with only about half of them having actually paid their premiums.Black unemployment is listed as about 15%-which is 6% higher than under Bush-but in reality it's over 20%.4 Americans, including an Ambassador, murdered in Benghazi which was promptly covered up by Hussein, Hillary, and the dems.IRS has become a political tool for the Obama administration in an effort to continue the destruction of this country.Obama lied to the country more than 30 times publicly when he said we liked our health care plan and our doctors we could keep them.Obama lied to keep any changes from being made to obamacare and then made the changes himself illegally in order to keep dems from the backlash coming in November.Obama claimed executive privilege to protect his lying Attorney General from the truth being told about Fast and Furious.Obama has made the U.S. the laughingstock of the international community with his feckless "red lines", "costs to pay", and other ridiculous threats that he's too much of a coward to back up.Obama has driven the national debt up more than $7 TRILLION in four years. Just for Lang's benefit, it took Bush 8 years to increase the debt by $4 BILLION.There are 47 MILLION people on food stamps-15 MILLION more than when he took office.OBAMACARE has been a national disgrace while decimating our economy and causing millions of workers to be moved from full-time employment to part-time employment.

Not too shabby for a pot-smoking community organizer from Chicago turned Senator-who-never-accomplished-anything turned president who hasn't accomplished anything.

Obama has had one success we can all agree on. He grew conservative political power more than any other president including Clinton.We need to remember he's a bumbling buffoon without Pelosi, Ried and a telliprompter.We"ve never had another president lying as often or poorly as BHO.The Democrat party is in panic driven debt trying to survive his presidency.I personally hope he keeps destroying the Democrat party for another two years.Thank you Obama the great.

Here's a clue:The president has effectively 'repealed' his own ACA some 37 times already, by illegally granting waivers and making delays that are not allowed in the law that he signed. In a Constitutional Republic, we are supposed to have 3 branches of co-equal government, not a monarch. That is the reality, away from the talking points that supporters read when they need to be told what they think.Aside from that, I disagree that this Presidency has been a failure.It's been a HUGE SUCCESS. It's been EXACTLY what it was intended to be. Exactly what then Senator Obama SAID it would be, time and again. Exactly what President Obama continued to promise, over and over, at re-election. EXACTLY what he got elected to do...twice.It's been the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE of America. How can anyone say this President has failed to do that. He's been an unmitigated success at doing what he told anyone listening he'd do. What 51% of the nation voted him in twice to do. He's fundamentally changed us. I'm sure that his supporters can enumerate DOZENS of examples of such change that have made things better for the nation here and abroad. A few. One?A FAILURE?NO. NO WAY.To call this Presidency a failure is to ignore reality. If he'd been trying to decrease dependency on government, increase jobs, elevate our standing in the world, promote national unity, and work with the duly elected members of Congress to accomplish things that benefit all citizens, THEN he'd be a failure. But, he's done none of those things, because they were not part of 'fundamental change', his goal, his mantra, his legacy.To accuse this man's Presidency of failure is akin to saying that the collapse of the Hoover Dam would be a failure.That would actually be a catastrophe.Too.

Senator Obama: " The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back . That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."Well the debt is now OVER $17.5 TRILLION. Yes, Island Runner, Bush left us with a big mess. Obama has almost DOUBLED it. But given the time left in his term he will more than DOUBLE it! Bush added $4 trillion to the debt, Obama so far has added more debt than Presidents Washington to GW Bush combined. How has he "cleaned" it? The rest of the world is now laughing at us.

He was not ready to be President,..Plain and simple. People can say what they want to,...it is not going to change the facts, nor the truth. The grass is going to wither,...and the flower is going to fade,...but the truth will abide forever! The man was not ready for the big stage. I'm not saying this for no other reason than it is the truth.-Doing what he did is like taking a brand new unit supervisor at Marathon and making him/her the CEO of the whole Corporation. Anybody who knows anything about management will know,..that individual will go to NY City,..and chilly up to those in the building who the individual thinks has the necessary juice and knowledge in order to help him/her to stay afloat!-They will make decisions based on that along and not on personal background or experience,...because there will be none applicable to the situations at hand.-That is what's happening in DC now! One term in the Senate does not qualify anybody,...Mr. Obama, Mr. Cruz or anybody else to become the Leader Of The Free World! One should have more on their resume than one senatorial term,..I'm sorry.-I love variety and diversity as much as anyone, but you must be qualified, to do the job, you aspire to hold, or you will just make a fool out yourself and those who helped you to get the job in the end. Getting to the mountain top and fulfilling a dream should also mean,...doing the work assigned with a spirit of excellence,...and not end up being ashamed and disgraced later! -It is going to be hard to elect another female Constable in Pct. 7. It is going to be hard for, LMISD leaders to win back the trust and respect the district enjoyed when, Ms. Bowie,..Major Bock, Dr. Larkhart, Ms. Pratt, and Dr. Armstrong were serving the public there,...and it is going to be a long time in my opinion, before this country is ready for another President Obama.-Let this be a warning to those who are qualified but sit back and watch! There were many who BEGGED Colin Powell to run for President, but he refused THEREBY giving opportunity for "others" to step up instead,... soothing the hunger pains in this country for change and opportunity! Qualified candidates' refusal opened the door for "others" who just did not have the experience nor the knowledge domestically ,...or on the WORLD STAGE in order to pull it off. The respect was never there in most cases, and in places where there was respect, it is dwindling very rapidly now! Lastly,..let it be known, that I have no selfish motives, or negative agenda for saying these things! Noooo! In 2008, I voted for President Obama!! In 2012,...I did NOT!!!!-Dr. King stood for opportunity and equal access,...I think I did my part in 2008 in representing those values. Dr. King also stood for producing after you ascertained those accesses and opportunities, and that too should be tantamount to accesses and opportunities sort after.-

“If it falls to your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures, sweep streets like Beethoven composed music ... Sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the host of heaven and earth will have to pause and say: Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well.” ...... ( Dr. M.L. king 4/9/67 ).-Strangely,...many will accept that Dr. King stood for equality,..equal access and equal opportunity,..but they do not want to hear about THAT SWEEPING STREETS SERMON ABOVE! [wink]

Bigjim, Putin and the rest of the world sees us cutting our troop numbers as a sign of weakness. We have our Drones, Putin has his A-Bombs. Obama has announced that he is afraid of an A-Bomb hitting NYC. I'm sure glad he didn't mention Galveston County. You say, "Large money controls the policies of the U.S.A." Not entirely true any more. The policies of the USA are now in control of those who contributed to Obama's campaign. Some of it is big money. The rest, leftist ideologues.

History review TikiOwl, Although Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon, on February 7, 1984, he ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon largely because of waning congressional support for the mission. The Democratic Party under Speaker Tip O'Neill held a 272 to 163 majority in the US House. The Senate was held by the Republicans with a 54 to 46 slight majority. "Cut and Run"? You could say that, its your right, and your interpretation.

Amen to that, mytoby. As for the sour grapes still exhibited by bevoresident and the others, it was (both in 2008 and 2012) the GOP's responsibility to bring upon some viable candidates so that this country would not go down the sewer.

The repubs failed to do so. I would think that to categorize the 2 terms of Obama presidency as failures would require true failures to have taken place. From what I hear, unemployment is waning, the debate for rise in minimum wage is strong (and rightly so), the world is behind us so far in the intricacies and complexities involved in dealing with Russia/Putin.

A failed presidency would also mean that the stock market tumbled admist his "socialist" presidency. Yet, it did not, and we had its record high in Nov. of 2013 and again in Feb 2014. Yessireee, a failed presidency - NOT!!!!

I would ask you to provide any specific whatsoever but I know you'll be unable to do it. Hussein and the Left has nothing but broken promises, shattered dreams, and massive lies to prop up the reckless regime of this president.

He was when he took office the first time and again the second time around, nothing more than a social experiment by the Left to prove that we could elect to the highest office in this country based on nothing more than skin color and the barest of experience and abilities. It's an experiment that has failed miserably-not because of the color of his skin but rather how thin-skinned and utterly unqualified he is.

" From what I hear, unemployment is waning, the debate for rise in minimum wage is strong (and rightly so), the world is behind us so far in the intricacies and complexities involved in dealing with Russia/Putin."

I suppose if you tell lies often enough even the liars themselves begin to believe them. "From what I hear"... is not really a substantive expression of what can be measured quantitatively. It's mushy, just like Hussein's foreign, economic, and political policies.

Very true, Jbgood. One has to have a clue to understand that equality of opportunity does not necessarily equate to equality of outcome. In anything. By anybody.And that running a country requires experience with critical decision making and team building, not just voting 'present' and giving speaches.You don't get much 'cleaned up' just talking about it...

Great, the drones will be able to tell us how many and where the Russian and Chinese military boots are as they come ashore here because we don't have any boots to stop them. Putin is showing the world's armies that nothing will replace being able to place boots on the ground when you want to take and hold that ground. The Chinese are building the largest military in the world and we're sitting back wringing our hands and trying to convince the world the most significant threat to our safety is "climate change". It would be funny if it weren't so troubling and definitive of the bizarre mindset of those on the Left.

You're being kind JB. Obama taking office is actually closer to a brand new unit supervisor at Marathon being made CEO of the corporation even though he failed every test he took during his training. Of course he'd also think Marathon is an evil entity who has ruined the environment and he'd have to apologize to all the other chemical companies for being in existence. And he'd have to do that between all the time he'd spend jetting around the world on the Marathon corporate jet to the best golf courses in the universe.

To mytoby3113: Please read the following transcript where WOMD is mentioned TEN TIMES!!!! Funny that the Leftist have attributed the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to President George W, Bush but this speech was given by the President of the United States on December 16, 1998 in his bombing of Iraq in the Operation Desert Fox. GW Bush did not take office until January 2001. Who is the President who uttered WOMD TEN TIMES????? That would be President William Jefferson Clinton!http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/mytoby3113 , you wrote "But just as you lied for Bush with his WOMD." Bush simply repeated Clinton's message about WOMD. Give credit where credit is due. Bill said WOMD first!

Reply to carlosrponce posted at 3:44 pm on Thu, Mar 27, 2014. “From the beginning of 2011 through Oct. 17, Mr. Obama and the Democrats raised about $1.06 billion, and Mr. Romney and the Republicans collected $954 million. I don’t think that lack of funds was a problem for either one .To be able to raise this much, promises are made. Groups or individuals give to both parties to hedge their bets. My comment about the drones and less need for boots on the ground. was in response to “He has reduced our military at a time the entire world is in jeopardy of war”,not to imply that is all we have. The future of USA needs for troops is changing. How many countries are ready to attack the USA because we reduced the number of troops?

“Putin has his A-Bombs” and so does obama. Do You think Putin will use the A-Bomb ?. If he does what would the USA response be? “According to the Nuclear Notebook, Russia had 5,200 Warheads deployed in 2008, making it the largest stockpile in the world.” USA has about 3100, all the numbers are just estimates.What is happening is posturing and saber-rattling“

All I know is George Patton is somewhere laughing his behind off at the way Russia is "using" the USA right now. I think I could go out and find 15 Vietnam veterans and ask them if Mr. Putin would have made the same moves he has made,....with Mr. John McCain as President rather than Mr. Obama, and I'd bet anything, at least 14 of them would guarantee you Mr. Putin would not have!-Some leaders are like wild animals in the jungle,....they can smell weakness a mile off! Like it or not, many countries in the world perceives Mr. Obama as a weak President. You can ask any bully in a school yard,....they use the same concept Mr. Putin has deployed on Mr. Obama. Before they practice their bullying,...they first observe, and determine who are the weak,...and what will be the repercussions coming from the bullying!!!!!!!

Secretary of State John Kerry complained on Sunday's edition of NBC News' Meet the Press that Vladimir Putin was playing by "19th century" rules. Barack Obama believes in unilateral disarmament. Who do you think will use THE BOMB?We were both children during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Jack Kennedy stood up to Nikita Khrushchev. Barack Obama is not in John F. Kennedy's class."How many countries are ready to attack the USA because we reduced the number of troops?" One is one too many.

Reply to bvresident posted at 6:16 pm on Thu, Mar 27, 2014.“The Defense Department’s goal of an active-duty force of 1.32 million service members in 2018, about 73,000 fewer than in 2013“. The reduction is part of the withdraw from the war we are now in. Will this reduction encourage an attack on the USA ?New techaloigy will also reduce man power needes. “The department will continue to push for growth in special operations capability and cyber warfare experts“. Weapons such as sonic and ultrasonic weapons ,particle cannons, drone tanks and much more. Wars in future will have less boots on the ground.

Actual personnel in the forces Russia had 766,000 in October 2013China has the largest army in the world with 2,285,000 troops 2013. Which country do you think we need to be more careful of, Russia or China? If you pick Russia, then its not the number of boot on ground. If it’s China then what about the A bomb advantage that that Russia has.

The first use of the term "weapon of mass destruction" on record is by Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:"Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction"?[James Goodby (of the Brookings Institution) traced what he considers the earliest known English-language use soon after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although it is not quite verbatim): a communiqué from a 15 November 1945, meeting of Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Mackenzie King (probably drafted by Vannevar Bush– or so Bush claimed in 1970) referred to "weapons adaptable to mass destructionThe term was also used in the introduction to the hugely influential US Government Document known as NSC-68 written in April 1950.During a televised presentation about the Cuban Missile Crisis on 22 October 1962, John F. Kennedy made reference to "offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction“. The term "weapons of mass destruction" continued to see periodic use throughout this time, usually in the context of nuclear arms control; Ronald Reagan used it during the 1986 Reykjavík Summit, when referring to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, used the term in an 1989 speech to the United Nations, using it primarily in reference to chemical arms.[

"Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man. " - Klingon ProverbWe did not expect an attack by commercial jets in 2001. Why are you assuming the next attack will be conventional or with ultra-modern weapons? Look to North Korea and Iran in addition to Russia and China. Expect the unexpected. Follow the Scout motto: "Be Prepared."

My point was merely that if you disregard the TARP bailouts made by both administrations, you're mostly looking at the run-ups do to their fiscal policies. When you look at budgeted deficits by both presidents, you're looking at similarly poor budget management. The credit for poor budget performance goes equally to the presidents and congresses in session during their runs. Somehow, the economic mental illness that leads people to think that if government continues spending a lot more than it takes in, things will eventually work out.

10 hrs?Seems like 'slow troll' would be a subject for one of Captain Kent's fishing columns..

Anyway, the Russians or Chinese are NOT the country(s) we need to be most careful of for our nation's safety.The country we need to be most worried about adversely effecting this nation's safety and future is the United States of America. We are our own worst enemy, now. And, it's NOT because Barack Obama is our President. It's because of the mindset of all the people who made him that. Twice.Fool them once. shame on him. Fool them twice....

Don't forget, too, Jim, that we both just spent a lot of years at a place that ultimately decided that machines and technology and written procedures could offset lower staffing and on-the-job experienced human hands and minds.From my perspective where I spent a very long afternoon and night back in 2005, that didn't work out so well...

carlosrponce, it's news to me that AIG, and Bear Stearns were union companies. Also, all of the big names that we bailed out, either so they could remain independent, or through financing their acquisition by others, had declared bankruptcy. Whether or not we should have rolled the dice with WAMU, Wachovia, Shearson Lehman, AIG, Bear Stearns, etc., is certainly debatable. However, once we established that as our strategy, it would have been difficult to follow a different path with the next big round of bankruptcies.

If we really want to play Monday morning quarterback, we never should have allowed all the mergers that led to those companies being "too big to fail".

We did not expect an attack by commercial jets in 2001. If in 2001 we had 50,000 more troops, would 2001 have happen? Also remember that a lot of military jobs are done by contractors.

Why are you assuming the next attack will be conventional or with ultra-modern weapons? I was referring to is the USA weapons. What ever type of weapons the other side has, we are not going to use only what is equal to what they have. We already use modern weapons. We are not still using just the weapons of WW1, and we will continue to improve .

Well, bevoresident, I prefer to express MY OWN opinion as opposed to cuts and pastes of 6 or more story links. Do you really think we're going to take the time to open all of that? Just face it, you have a 2-term President who by all means isn't perfect, but has made very substantive legislative successes. It eats your heart out that a man of color is, contrary to your decades of upbringing, articulate, surpassed probably many of your people, and moved the country more toward where it should be. By the way, aren't you one of the posters who has a Spanish surname, yet you cannot speak Spanish?

Hillary was patient enough to allow B. Obama to set the path. She will continue. So, without supplying six (6) internet links, can you at least answer to why the stock market has made 2 or more record highs under B. Obama's presidency? And, why unemployment has waned, and then there's that little matter of Hussain's arse being kicked away under Obama's administration.

Party of the rich, and also the Repub party is party of the "wannabe" rich who think if they hobnob with the wealthy that it somehow will rub off or transfer onto them. I conjecture that the Repub party in its current state suffers from the DSM-IV categorization of "delusional disorder", where the party members/voters exhibit false beliefs such as being followed (by "dangerous" non Christian, non white minorities). The delusional/Republicans also demonstrate overvalued ideas, where they hold unreasonable beliefs that are not firmly held.

Interestingly, this type of delusional disorder individual rarely seeks psychiatric help, remain isolated. Thus explains the difficulty that most Republicans have in accepting persons of color, gays/lesbians, and non-Christians. The good news is that the typical delusional disorder/Republican typically exhibits a mild form of psychosis, and treatment (first and foremost, absolving oneself from the defunct Republican party) is indeed attainable.

Hey gecroix - are you well-rested? Did you get to meet any famous people while retreating?

More importantly, were you able to read my latest comment on the thread "Guns and The Price of Freedom"? It would be good to know on where you stand in regard to us more affulent persons being "envious" of folks who use what little $ they get from the government on their governmental-issued phones. Perhaps you can take a break from your sabbatical to answer that inquiry. It can relate, loosely, to bvresident's angst in regard to more folks being on food stamps under Obama's presidency.

Again, I ask: Are we to be envious of the folks using Lone Star cards for food? I still don't think they can buy all the high value meat and luxury items nor throw lavish cocktail parties with what little $ they get from the governmental dole. I'd rather be truly rich than rely on governmental aid. I think they would too if we asked them.

To sverige: Your "analysis of the typical Republican" is way off the mark. A true Republican believes in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. On the other hand, the Proglib Posters to this forum are far from "typical". Nationwide, the majority of Democrats are steering clear of President BO. Even President Clinton is questioning his economic and international policies. There are exceptions of course like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who like the Proglib posters in this forum continue to carry water for this failed president.

Servitude, your problem is that you often present your opinion as fact when you provide nothing to back it up. I provide the facts in addition to my opinion. The links I offered previously give the facts that are in direct contrast with the propaganda being spewed by you, tikiowl, mytoby, and even lang.

Why don't you tell us exactly what Hussein has done to take the stock market to where it is and how exactly does that benefit the middle class and the poor-neither of which has any significant exposure to those exchanges? I say Obama has done nothing other than continue to allow Wall Street to manipulate the market to unsustainable and unjustifiable highs which will result in significant harm to small investors when the inevitable correction occurs. You're obviously proud of that.

As for "waning" unemployment, you should understand that is mostly smoke and mirrors by the regime. What is being presented to the public is not the real unemployment. It also doesn't include the millions of formerly full-time employees who are now part-time employees courtesy of Hussein's obamacare.\

What you aren't talking about is the massive increase in black unemployment under Hussein's regime and the much lower rate that it was under Bush. You don't talk about the massive increase in dependency on entitlements under Hussein's deft handling of the economy and the equally massive increase in national debt ($7.5 TRILLION in five years) vs. the $4 trillion increase during Bush's EIGHT years.

You see Servitude, you never address the discrepancies between the talking points you and the Left puts out and what is reality. You just flit between one moronic statement and another.

But you are typical of the Left-vitriolic, angry, believers in dependency on the government, haters of those who work to succeed and are ultimately successful. A pitiful life indeed.

A very accurate description of both Obama and those who voted for him by Dr. Jack Wheeler. It provides a much clearer explanation of why Obama was elected other than the ridiculous statement by Servitude that Hillary "graciously" stepped aside.

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no b*lls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Well, there's no reason to allow room for distinct philosophies and writring styles. You like to insert incessant links, as I give opinions through my own thoughts, not unlike a columnist.

Now, to the matters at hand. You seem to deny that Obama has been integral as our executive leader in ameleorating the situation in Iran. As they were helpful in getting justice after 9-11, Obama "cleaned up Bush's mess" by using diplomacy (unlike "mass weapons of destruction" Bush/Cheney). In another thread, I delineated the way that the Obama administration is funding more for public works. More job starters. What did Bush do? Nothing. Worst track record. Bush created a mere 3.0 million jobs, Clinton - 23.1 million. Even Reagan made 16.0 million.

You're delirious. Hussein hasn't done anything to stop Iran's nuclear weapon agenda. He has only removed the sanctions that were slowing its progress. Once again the Great Appeaser has capitulated to despots rather than show strength. Kind of like when he bowed to the Saudis during his first Middle East visit. As for Iran "helping" us after 9-11, you're cracked.

You "delineated the way Hussein is funding more for public works"? Are you serious? In what way? More of our tax dollars being funneled to union coffers in order to support the Left's agenda?

As for job starters, unemployment under Bush was so low already that there wasn't much room to improve on. The real damage occurred and is still occurring under your president's destructive agenda of forcing full-time workers into part-time employment. Such is the Left's definition of "success". Amazing.

Dr. Jack Wheeler said "I would not in any circumstances vote for John McCain, not if either Hillary or Obamawere the alternative." Unfortunately Dr. Wheeler was killed. Do You think the same bvresident or would You not vote ?

Hmmm. I suppose I should have known better than to believe either you or Servitude would carefully and specifically refute what Mr. Wheeler wrote. Instead, as usual you pivot to a completely different topic. We're talking about your president's incompetence here. There is no Presidential election at the moment nor has either party declared its candidate for that office so it's really not something that has to be decided at this time. It's my personal opinion though that both Hillary and McCain are unqualified to lead this country as President. As is Barack Hussein Obama. The Republican can and must do better than running Rino's and closet democrats for the highest office in the country. We've seen the massive damage being done when the Left gets that kind of power.

AIG DID declare bankruptcy. They all did. The bailouts prevented the turmoil of liquidation, which very likely would have put a lot more people onto the streets. Now, many of them would have been those in the C-Suite that were mostly responsible for the problems, but it also would have terminated the employment of a bunch of people that had little, if anything, to do with the problems. We don't have much of an idea as to what the cost to the government would have been had all of those people hit the unemployment and perhaps even the welfare lines, nor do we know the further resonance within the financial community as their home and car loans were defaulted, nor the impact of business partners, vendors, etc. of these companies. Even if we had harder data on that today, we didn't have that hard data at the time of the crisis.it was doubtful that bailout would have been an option had they taken the weeks required to analyze it.

The Bush and Obama administrations had to make quick decisions on which of two ugly options to take. Most likely, neither was any better than the other. Economists long after we're gone will write graduate theses on this subject.

What propaganda are you attributing to me? Is it propaganda that the overwhelmingly largest contributor to the 8 trillion addition to the debt was the bailouts, and beyond that, Obama and our poor excuse for a Congress have to share the blame for the remainder of the increased debt accrued? I hardly think that's boosting anyone's cause. Isn't that the intent of propaganda?

You seem to think that just because I'm not naming Ted Cruz as our savior, nor Obama as Satan and calling for the immediate assassination of Biden and Obama that I must be a rah-rah supporter of everything the administration has done throughout.

I could get on here and rant about all the things that everyone has done wrong and what it would take to make me happy, but I'm smart enough to know that getting everything I want probably isn't the best thing for me, and especially not for the nation at large--especially if it happened all of a sudden.

As for the performance of your president, I'd say my biggest concern is that, while we're pretty much out of the worst of the recession, and we do have a financial marketplace that is more stable than it was in 2009, I don't think anything substantial has been done to avoid the behaviors that led us over the cliff. Sure, regulations were passed that might have some effect on the exact same set of circumstances, but very little to address the real structural issues. More a bandaid than a real treatment.

And, regardless of the philosophical aspects of the ACA, the goals were designed to go into effect with a too much, too soon approach. Wild pendulum swings are not something that anyone should have expected to be accepted widely and readily. Like they say, slow and steady. ACA was designed for political expediency with a hope that everyone involved would just follow along and gulp down despite the hiccups.

22 hrs, and still no example of "almost cleaned up"?Just like our POTUS...knows a whole lot that simply isn't so...Normally I value consistency, but it's not a positive when trolls and/or race baiters do it...You are dismissed.Too.

Funny, kevjlang, a web search shows AIG merely threatened to declare banruptcy but never did.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_AIG_file_bankruptcyhttp://money.cnn.com/2014/02/27/news/companies/bernanke-aig/index.htmlhttp://www.thestreet.com/story/10437758/1/aig-bankruptcy-threat-forced-feds-hand.htmlYes and with those bailouts they paid $165 million in executive bonuses and then planned on giving an additional $1.2 Billion in bonuses to the entire company until the public outcry stopped that mess. I still believe that government should not interfere in private business. If you or I make a bad investment, Uncle Sugar is not there to smooth things over.

"Well, you're pretty high on the range of emotion and personal feeling as opposed to bringing forth facts as to why Mr. Obama's presidency is so "failed". " Posted by Servitude

Talk about being dense Servitude. I posted all this at the beginning of this thread. Not sure if you can't read or won't read but here are the facts again.

Here's some of your president's achievements-or for your benefit, FAILURES!

6 MILLION previously insured people forced off their current policies by obamacare.3 MILLION (if you can believe HHS and the White House) "enrolled" in obamacare with only about half of them having actually paid their premiums.Black unemployment is listed as about 15%-which is 6% higher than under Bush-but in reality it's over 20%.4 Americans, including an Ambassador, murdered in Benghazi which was promptly covered up by Hussein, Hillary, and the dems.IRS has become a political tool for the Obama administration in an effort to continue the destruction of this country.Obama lied to the country more than 30 times publicly when he said we liked our health care plan and our doctors we could keep them.Obama lied to keep any changes from being made to obamacare and then made the changes himself illegally in order to keep dems from the backlash coming in November.Obama claimed executive privilege to protect his lying Attorney General from the truth being told about Fast and Furious.Obama has made the U.S. the laughingstock of the international community with his feckless "red lines", "costs to pay", and other ridiculous threats that he's too much of a coward to back up.Obama has driven the national debt up more than $7 TRILLION in four years. Just for Lang's benefit, it took Bush 8 years to increase the debt by $4 BILLION.There are 47 MILLION people on food stamps-15 MILLION more than when he took office.OBAMACARE has been a national disgrace while decimating our economy and causing millions of workers to be moved from full-time employment to part-time employment.

"Hillary/Bill distancing from President's policies." Do you have evidence where they have said so on Meet the Press, Stephanophulus, or your FAV - Fox News?

I think we need to not get away from ouselves in regard to this thread. The original letter showed no substance in regard to Obama's "failures". In your 2:30 post you seem to reiterate once again about the Benghanzi tragedy. Among other setbacks that any person who leads a company or a nation, there's bound to be underestimations and near-misses.

We can credit Obama for many things: Telling Mubarek he "has to go". He kicked banks out of the federal student loan program, thus saving on the treasury. Improved food safety, made conditions available to close the dirtiest power plants. He basically set out to do what he promised. He is overall a champion for the middle class and the environment. "Billary" will continue the course.

Regarding government involvement, I tend to agree with you. Of course, when the companies are "too big to fail", the government was forced to consider the domino effects, and their effects on the normal operations of other companies. AIG wasn't bailed out to save AIG as much as it was to try to prevent AIG taking other companies with them.

The collapse of the financial markets was, to some extent, due to government policies and lack of government oversight (based on regulations already in place at the time).

By the time we got to GM and Chrysler, not only were the impacts to suppliers and employees a big concern, so too, was the lack of financial market liquidity to finance their buyouts. There were no white knights with the capital resources to take over all or part of those companies, and the marketplace was in no position to take over their combined share of the production and maintenance load.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'm in danger of being "too big to fail" anytime soon--not in this lifetime, anyway. :-)

As for GM and Chrysler the ONLY reason they were bailed out was to save the Union pensions. Declaring bankruptcy would result in these being renegotiated. Suppliers would still supply. Employees could not however look forward to a big fat pension check after working for a few years.

bvresident, do you really believe that I denied the debt hasn't increased around 8 trillion during Obama's presidency?

Both Bush AND Obama committed a ton of our money to bailing out Corporate America. None of those transactions were part of the legislated spending plans. Rightly, or wrongly, they took the advice of the leading economists and the Treasury Dept. and decided these companies were too big to fail.

If you take those bailouts out, you get down to the actual fiscal capabilities of both administrations and the congresses they served alongside. Granted, Bush was faced with a sudden and unforeseen increase in military spending due to the War on Terror. That excuses the spending overruns through, perhaps 2003. So, let's paint the picture using just the last 5 years of Bush and the first 5 years of Obama. I believe Obama is probably still outpacing Bush. However, deciding how much to blame or credit a president for budget performance depends on how important you think Congress is to the process, and how consistent you want to be with that assessment. If you want to blame the president for it, that's fine. But, then we have to agree that Bush was pretty bad at budget management, too, and also agree that Clinton, especially in comparison, was pretty good. I tend to think that Congress has to bear a big chunk of the responsibility. In that regard, whether we're talking about Republican or Democratic congresses, I'm not smelling many roses over the past decade. Maybe this one will turn out smelling at least a little better than a corpse flower.

Oh, and bvresident, Bush's contribution was 4 TRILLION, and change. 4.9 TRILLION if you want to accept Republican sources. Some might round that up to 5 TRILLION, but we'll call it 4 if that makes you happy.

Make it $5 trillion in 8 years lang. Obama's is $7.5 in 5 years. Do the math. Obama also had complete and absolute control of Congress for his first two years in office. He wasted it by ramming through the horrendous (Un)Affordable Care Act.

What did your president's vaunted stimulus plan for $1 trillion do besides get funneled to unions, democrat supporters, and ACORN? Remember how it was supposed to create "shovel-ready" jobs and then they all had a big yucking laugh about how maybe they weren't quite as shovel-ready as they thought?

We can debate this all day long but the facts are stubborn. Bush is no longer in office and Hussein was elected on his promises to cut the deficit in half during his first term, create jobs, "reset" the U.S.'s relationship with Russia, reduce a family's premium by an average of $2500 per year under the ACA, and be the most transparent administration in our history. Do you honestly believe he has successfully accomplished-or has even tried-any of that?

Fast & Furious cover-up of the murder of a Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexican citizens.IRS cover-up of the illegal targeting of conservative groups for strictly political purposes..Benghazi cover-up of the murders of four Americans including an Ambassador.More than 30 illegal amendments to obamacare.Billions wasted on defunct "green-energy investments" that only funneled money back to democrat coffers.Forced 6 MILLION previously insured individuals to lose their coverages under obamacare.Tens of millions more on entitlements and government handouts.Has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is utterly unqualified to make foreign policy decisions.Increased our national debt by almost $8 TRILLION in five years.

And you believe his accomplishments are that he's improved food safety and been a champion of the middle class and the environment and "made conditions available to close the dirtiest power plants" whatever the heck that's supposed to mean? Hmmmm. Impressive indeed. That stuff should secure his place in the history books.

I'm sure you'll be the kind of individual who, upon seeing the 1st history book on record that includes Obama on the list as one of our Presidents, you'll get out the black Marks-a-Lot and black out his name. Or, you'll resort to ripping every page out that has his name. You'll want to get someone to film that while you exhibit those behaviors. Could make a good YouTube entry.

I believe that Obama's Stimulus package did about as much good as the one that Bush passed late in his second term, and combined with TARP, cost about the same. They both did wonders at adding to the debt, too. As far as getting money into consumer's and business's hands, both plans were flawed by the notion that for some reason, people without jobs, or on the verge of losing them, would run out and buy cars just because you wrote them a check for $500. Perhaps the TARP loans, grants to states and the like did act as a little bit of an economic buffer, but none of the stimulus packages stimulated anything greater than a few moments of good feelings.

I'm sure that both administrations, and the congresses that went along with them held out some hope that these stimulus packages would be the new Voodoo Economics, but, alas, they did little more than pour billions down rabbit holes.

I'm not going to pore over the daily diaries of the White House since January 2009. I'll guess that he has at least tried to do something along the lines of what he promised in his campaigns. I know that I don't take campaign promises as contracts, because I know that none of the candidates promises are made with anything more than rhetorical consideration. Over my lifetime, I'd guess that the average president has kept less than 20% of his campaign promises, and their opponents probably wouldn't have done much better. Honestly, if you believed his promises, why didn't you vote for him?

As for the economy, I don't give presidents much credit or blame over it. The economy isn't really their job. If the president and congress would concentrate on running the capitol, they would optimize the government's impact on the economy. I guess it's somewhat respectable that the government thinks it can help soften crashes, but its fiscal behavior between crashes doesn't seem to include paying back the debt.

The only reason that Fiat was even willing to touch Chrysler was because of the govt finance package. If Fiat hadn't come along, Chrysler would have shut down. There's no way that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Ford, BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen, or any other global automaker was going to take over Chrysler's production capacity, service contracts, or anything else. The hope behind the bailout of GM was that someone would come along and buy them as soon as they were stabilized. That didn't happen, because there was no one out there prepared to sink that much money into a questionable investment.

I'm not going to trivialize the impact of the pensions and union wage contracts. I'm sure that was in play, too. However, I can't believe you would trivialize the impact to the auto industry and economy at large if two of the largest companies in the sector were to just shut down.

There were just too many economic factors besides the union pensions that factored into the bailout decision. Things like reduced income and sales taxes for the Fed and State govts, increased unemployment and welfare benefits, and the govt eventually having to cover the pension shortages. Sure, eventually other manufacturers would have filled the production gaps, but at what cost?

Yes, perhaps we could have let them fail. However, that sure would have looked like an arbitrary, and perhaps spiteful, decision. Just because you'd have been happy to see a union comeuppance, the reality is that it probably would have been a bigger comeuppance for the rest of the economy and much of the union hurt would have been born by us with more taxation or larger deficits.

Not that Monday Morning Quarterbacking has any capability to change anything that happened in the past.

Obama a failure? Hardly. He is merely the latest frontman for the steady growth of the progressive agenda which got its foothold in American culture with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the mid-60’s.An agenda which believes our Constitution is a “living document”, not the set of concrete principles which established our country. An agenda which demands equal outcome, not equal opportunity. An agenda which focuses on the common good, not individual liberty. An agenda which dominates free market capitalism with regulation and crony capitalism. An agenda which no longer sees America as the shining beacon of liberty, but instead, the root cause of evil in the world. An agenda which has federalized our failing education system – teaching self esteem instead of math and science. An agenda which protects the snail darter over water desperately needed for agriculture. An agenda which is well on its way to destroying the best medical system in the world.

All in the name of domestic and foreign "equality".

No, Obama is not a failure. He just happens to be the latest America-hating sweet talker the progressives have found to advance their agenda. Where else but America could a person drug his way through his youth, get his education at the right hand of domestic terrorists, get diplomas from the best colleges and universities without attending class, and then rise to become the ruler of a once great country?

No Servitude, I no longer rely on "history books" to tell me the truth about our history. They're all being revised in our schools and libraries to tell the progressive's idea of what history was really like complete with your hatred for this country and everything that made it great.

Climate change-not the expansive growth in entitlements is what the Left considers the biggest threat to their way of life. As for your president, what I've seen from you is more vitriol about former President Bush than any of the factual information I've posted of your president. But that's the modus operandi of the Left-hate speech, lies, disgust for this country, hatred of the military, disgust for capitalism but a love fest for the monetary excesses of Hollywood, music, and sports industries, and a fervent desire to allow the illegal immigration of millions to turn this country into just another third-world land mass.

People like you have nothing to support your wild-eyed suppositions on so you resort to playing the race card for everything. It doesn't work with me. Your antics only reinforce how completely void of any real substance your positions are.

I was responding to mytoby3113 reference that GW Bush lied about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" when in fact Bill Clinton used it repeatedly in his speeches about his bombing of Iraq in 1998. I never said Bill invented the phrase, merely that he said it prior to GW Bush in reference to Iraq. Yet the Democritters hang it on President Bush saying he lied about WOMD when he merely repeated President Clinton's statements concerning Iraq.

I can still respect Mr. Obama a little bit. I mean the man let everybody know what was coming ahead of time. Many times things are not so bad if you know ahead of time whats on the way!! I can respect him for that any-how.. ( East Texas for anyway ).-Mr. Obama is doing now what he promised Mr. Putin he would do, so why are many of us acting surprised? Well,..didn't the man sit somewhere overseas at a meeting and tell Mr.Dmitry Medvedev,.Prime Minister of Russia , to tell Mr. Vladimir Putin,...President of Russia, that he ( BO)..would be more flexible and mutable to Putin,... AFTER HE DECEIVED THE AMERICANS PEOPLE INTO ELECTING HIM A SECOND TERM? I might have paraphrased a little but the deception on his part was still there for anyone with eyes to see! I know Mr. Putin recognized it,..or he would not be acting the fool like he is doing! This is why he is running "BUCK WILD" over in Europe now with nobody to rein him in! -He has been harboring ill-will in his heart ever since the Soviet Union failed,...and much more for what President Kennedy and John McCain'nem did to them during that Cuban Missile Crisis years ago. We might forget stuff like that but I'll bet you they have not!!!-A Russian,..Communist, or a Viet Cong can smell weakness and fear a mile off!There is a distinct odor, which emits from an individual who is weak and afraid!!! I'm serious!!!! I'm not lying! Years ago,...I told an All State football player from a hated rival school who happened to be much bigger than I was, "Boy,...you are so afraid of me, you stink,...and that is why I'm gonna KICK YOUR BUTT TONIGHT!" -After the game I had to go down to the local Justice Of The Peace,...and get an official Notary stamped on his Emancipation Papers,...freeing that sucker, because I OWNED HIM ALL NIGHT LONG! See, I did not pay any attention to the scouting reports on him,...I took measures in my own hands and dared to back my own play by being quick, mean, and ferocious! I stayed on him like a savage, and talked SMACK all night LONG!!!! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MR. PUTIN DID,.. AND IS DOING "RAT" NOW.- Fear,..and weakness to a bully,any BULLY,...is like blood in the water to a man-eating SHARK! It opens the gate for an attack! That's all I know!!!

Au contraire, bevoresident, regarding Bush. I expressed admiration for Bush when he handled the initial news he got from 9-11. That is, he kept his composure while reading to schoolkids. In regard to factual information about his "failures", recall the fact I posted about employment gains being the least from his administration.

And, I might add that another "positive" from the Bush era, although it's a "stretch", is to commend Bush for seemingly setting a good example of what portends to a good family. His wife very likely she knew back then she was out of his league but married him because he was a Bush. The two daughters (Jenna and the other I can't remember the name) sorted through their growing pains and appear to be well-adjusted young women. Although "Bush's Presidency Has Been a Failure", his family life was not. Couple that with his need to manage his alcoholism, indeed his family seemed to have overcome that with him.

I do find it interesting that you, in one breath, say that I don't "love our country", yet your 9:06 Sunday paragraph is wrought with prose about our nation's lovefest for Hollywood's monetary excesses. Not only does that show YOUR hate for our country, but it also simply holds quite a far-reaching expression of disappointment in a realm that you nor I really have a basis to compare. After all, unless you're hiding something, you nor I have ties to Hollywood. I, for one, am regular middle-class folk who believes in fairness, have managed my own money wisely and fairly, and I have lived the American dream of owning house, car, and a few luxuries. I harbor no hate, but rather sympathy for the hypocritical folk who dislike people because they are different. Your Repub/Tea Party/Conservative ilk seems to have stayed with the 1st part of the 20th century. Heck, even the new Pope is more realistic than Mr. Santorium. I saw them on Meet the Press. Poor Santorium...with the perpetual pained expression on his face, he looks like he has a corncob that needs to be removed up from "somewhere".

sverige, you wrote, "Heck, even the new Pope is more realistic than Mr. Santorium." From your Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/30/rick-santorum-pope_n_5059042.html"[Pope]Francis has not veered from the Catholic Church's basic doctrine against homosexuality, but he has suggested he would not judge priests based on their sexual orientation. " This is no different than the stances taken by other popes. All homosexuals as well as priests are called to a life of celibacy.

"Called to Chastity (Catechism 2358-2359)

The number of persons with homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They did not choose their condition and they must be accepted with respect. All unjust discrimination must be avoided. They are called to do God's will and to unite their sacrifices to the Lord's sacrifice on the cross.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity and to a self-mastery to gain inner freedom. If supported by disinterested friendship, prayer, and the sacraments they can approach Christian perfection."

Pope Francis still stands against same sex marriage and the adoption by same sex couples. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Catholic Catechism at the book store.

When asked by NBC's "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd whether he is as "excited" by Pope Francis as other Catholics around the world appear to be, Santorum replied, "I am. He's a humble man. He lives the faith out in his own personal life. ... He's here to be a shepherd; he isn't here to be a scold. I think that's a good thing for the church and for the world, frankly."

Servitude, your unbridled anger at those in our society who believe working hard and being successful is honorable, who believe this country was founded on Godly principles and should continue as such, who believe that dependency on government handouts never makes anyone better or more likely to achieve independence, and those who despise the ruination of this nation under your president, is the core basis for the democrat party. Anger and hatred is your mantra. Entitlements and dependency is your battle cry and party philosophy.

As for the GOP being the party of the rich, have someone read this factoid to you.

Gotta love 'progressives'.They'll kiss the rear end of a guy who tells the truth maybe 1% of the time, but damn to heck the 'evil 1%' wealthy.Here's a clue:You've got it all backwards.You should be kissing the wealthy and the well off for paying so much in federal income taxes that fully half of the people don't have to pay anything, and raising heck with the mendacious characters telling you that a government check will help you become 'income equal'.But, nooooo...

It would be so much easier to start fixing it if the roots only went that deep. I'm afraid we've done a pretty good job of electing self-serving and political-machine-serving "representatives" for a couple of generations now. At this point, it's so well ingrained within the bureaucracy that it's going to take a good generation or more of well-thinking voters to get a full crop of quality statesmen in place. The few pragmatists in place now are pure mistakes that their constituents will probably rectify fairly soon. Partisanship is fine to a point. Sometimes you have to dig in to get most, or even some, of what you want. But, at some point, you also have to do the right thing or the best thing.

Yes, yes, of course. Let's not have any real partisanship, let's all get along. When the dems have control, it's two for them and one for the repubs. When the repubs have control it's two for them and one for the dems. We continue to get screwed because "they're working together". That's what you don't get Lang, the mess is a mess because they've been working with each other. This country needs leaders like Cruz and Paul and Lee and the handful of others who understand the thing is broken and working together won't do anything other than continue the course.

I think it's hilarious how you rail against what's wrong in Washington and then in the next breath state the way to fix it is for everyone to get along and work together. When they work together the public gets screwed because they're all swapping spit to share our tax dollars for their favorite pork or constituency. Maybe one day you'll figure that out.

And also a response to gecroix. Now, you see, Kevin actually hit the nail on the head. Our so-called "representatives" are not indicative to most of us in regard to income, social status, work ethic (most lawyers), and so forth. Aside from what we feel overall about lawyers, it's safe to say that their day job is very different than most other folks'. But, further than that, the bulk of our congressional representatives are stinking rich. Maybe not the Hollywood types that mr. bvresident abhors (although they can be hard-working and good people). So, right there I don't know why bvresident in his 10:04 Mon post can say in one breath that folks like me have no love for our country's work ethic, yet somehow he wants to slam the Hollywood crowd.

Either way, a prime example of how "out of touch" our representativesa are is Mr. McCaul, who represents much of Central Texas. Just last August McCaul lost the "top spot" for weathiest congressman. He and his wife (daughter of Clear Channel founder Lowry Mays have over 50 million in assets). He is now the 2nd weathiest, under Darrell Issa of California.

So, go right ahead, bvresident. Be a cheerleader for the ilk of the McCauls yet talk about how all the regular folks like me are "ruining this country".

I envision folks like bvresident writing their prose within the confines of their assisted living retirement homes, waiting for the lady who plays piano to come for Tuesday morning sing-along with coffee and scones. It's IMP to remember that Erikson says there's a cure for the individual who suffers in his latest stages from despair, indicativefrom the last life step of Bitterness vs Isolation. I'll do my part to be supportive. LMAO

There are many political pundits who say that what he did last September (catupulting the governmental shutdown) will not help his career. I predict a fellow republican challenger will replace him for nomination for senatorial re-election.

What part of "right thing or the best thing" do you not understand? When they have worked together for the right thing, which is very rare, good work has been done.

Getting along and working together is a good way to resolve things. Certainly, you fight for what's right. Working together merely to work together without concern for the value of what you're doing is NOT what I'm advocating, and you know that if you're making any attempt at comprehending what I'm writing. Too often, you can't get anything good passed unless you give away a bunch of bad stuff. One side won't eat their vegetables unless the other side gives away a bunch of hot fudge sundaes. I don't call that working together.

If Cruz is so powerful as just one representative with one vote that he can shut down the federal government then we need him indeed to right the ship in Washington. The truth is that Obama and reid and Pelosi shut it down as a ploy to capture more low-information voters while having no regard for those they say they support. As for Mr. McCaul being wealthy because he married into money, why exactly does that keep him from being able to represent fairly his constituents? Can you provide what he's failed to do?

I mean, he's not like your lying president who shut the government down because Cruz and some others wanted him to make some amendments to obamacare. Which of course now your president has done illegally more than 30 times since then. He's not like your lying president and former Secretary of State who said protests on 9/11 over a video were the reason for the murder of four Americans in Benghazi. Which of course the CIA has now reported they told the administration there were no protests before Susan Rice was sent out to lie on five different news shows.

You can spin around like a top all your want servitude, you people have all but destroyed this country with your entitlement mentality and handouts. Your president has singlehandedly squandered the respect we used to have from our allies and our enemies and all you do is squawk about people who work to become successful.

To anyone who thinks Ted Cruz shut down government I'll assign a grade of "F". Go back to Elementary School Social Studies. You really need a refresher course in the basics. Or at least watch "I'm Just a Bill ". That little cartoon has more sense than your Democratic Party mantras. http://www.schooltube.com/video/89a42a6866404f4baab7/Im-Just-a-Bill

If any one person is responsible for shutting down government you can point the finger at Harry Reid.

I have a question for everyone posting on here. TJ Aulds has been out of the office and every time I post a comment I get a reply back from his email saying he's out of the office. Is everyone getting the same email from him or is he just tracking my comments?

Now, I'd like to congratulate the President on his claimed success of his signature health care law making the stated 7 million mark by end of March, courtesy of a whopper of a 'last minute surge' in sign-ups.I doubt that there is even a 'smidgen' of chance that any of the figures were pulled out of someplace dark and smelly.On a positive note, Amazon.com will henceforth be following the POTUS example of how to keep the books, and anytime you go to their site and put anything into the shopping cart, even if you exit without submitting your order, even if no payment has been made, your 'selection' will count toward their YTD profit margin and gross sales records. Amazon shareholders may be a bit peeved at this 'progressive accounting', but the CEO will look really good, and this will help deter for a while the revelation that the system Amazon would use to actually bill and get paid for their services is not working, so they will be using the 'honor system' to handle the money. Say you paid, and they'll count you as paid, and just use more shareholder 'investments' to pay off suppliers until some idea can be had, if ever, about what's actually owed.There's also a new customer appreciation program going on right now, where all new customers who were once customers of other companies that went out of business when Amazon managed to get the federal trade rules changed making their offerings 'substandard' and therefore no longer available, will be getting a discount of up to 25% on all products. The fact that shipping/handling rates will go up as much as 500% or more, is not Amazon's fault - it's the shippers'.

Really, might as well laugh, because crying won't help. The level of dishonesty and flat out mendacity of this POTUS and his Administration is really something to watch from the sidelines.Unfortinately, we're all in the game....[sad]

Well, ruddiken -I never said "Windy" would win. Would be a pleasant outcome, however. Just b/c you support someone doesn't mean that you're thinking he/she will win. After all, if one is rallying around to support a relative who perhaps is in rehab, you support that person not because he/she will win the fight. Maybe he/she will, maybe not, but you support the cause.

As for carlosrponce...yes, Cruz did not do it alone. Sorry for bevoresident, but Cruz is NOT that powerful. However, there can be a percentage of responsibility assigned to such a person who harbors disharmony as opposed to harmony. How much responsibility? That's for the individual voter to decide. And, again, I am confident enough to presume that Cruz' political days are numbered.

I think your Crystal Ball has a crack in it sverige.There was a Bill to continue funding government.Bill passes House vote. Bill goes to the Senate and winds up in the hands of Senate Majority Harry Reid. Harry could have (a) Sent it to committee for further review or revision or (b) let Bill die with no further action taken. Harry chose "B". Ted Cruz never saw Bill. How can you blame him for Bill's demise? The Bill to extend government funding died in Harry Reid's hands. Harry killed Bill. Harry Reid shutdown the government. What part of this don't you understand?

Absolutely nothing wrong with writing a bill that you knew at the time of writing it would never pass muster in the other chamber. Nope. Not at all. I think I tried that trick with one of my HS or College instructors. That paper met the same fate as that House bill. Hmmm. That teacher had me convinced that if I had been paying attention to the assignment, I would have known better than to submit that poor excuse for a report. Fortunately, the teacher let the class revise their papers to meet meet editorial standards. I believe the US House had the same option. As I recall, they took advantage of a few mulligans around the shutdown.

Of course, Harry Reid is not blameless. However, there was no reason that the House Leadership HAD to send a bill out of the chamber that they knew was unpassable in the other chamber.

On the other hand, when is water under the bridge really past arguing about? Wasn't the partial shutdown really an indication of how ridiculously childish our elected representatives can be, and a lesson for us as voters to quit standing up for it?

A little while ago I watched the President of half the country, by his own choice, not ours, tell us all that 7.1 million people had 'enrolled' in the ACA. Period.Then took his usual 'uniting' shots at anyone who would claim otherwise, despite his own record of veracity being, well, less than stellar. Even did the Presidential Two Step by taking a shot at at the folks running adds against the ACA for 'wasting money', never mind the nearly 60 million he's spent on adds FOR the ACA since January alone. The difference being, what he spent is OUR money, not private sector funds. But, I digress. This 7.1 million numerical revelation comes despite the fact that not one time since October 1 has this Administration been able to give a set number on anything related to the ACA. It's always been 'we don't know' or 'we're not tracking that'. But, today, VOILA. got it down to a gnat's b-hind.And of those 7.1 million, HOW MANY lost their own insurance of choice because of the ACA mandates, and HAD to sign up for government run health care?Well, says he doesn't know. How many are young folks, without whom in sufficient number, this age oriented ponzi scheme goes belly up, OR the insurance companies jack prices sky high, AND/OR we, the taxpayers, bail out the insurance companies.Well, says he doesn't know.How many of that 7.1 million have not yet paid for their policy, so have no insurance in fact?Well, says he doesn't know. (In THAT, it may well be truth, since the payment part of the ACA hasn't even been built yet........oddly, though, no mention of that today....)How many of the claimed 7.1 are only shoppers on the ACA website, their only 'enrollment' being to get in and take a look, and have bought nothing?Well, says he doesn't know.How many of the 7.1 are people are being counted who have 'checked the honor system box' saying 'they tried to sign up', but couldn't?Well, says he doesn't know.How many of the folks forced onto the ACA when they lost their "you can keep your insurance, period" are paying significantly HIGHER premiums and/or much higher deductibles, that being not exactly more 'affordable'.Well, says he doesn't know.How many of the 7.1 are getting subsidies that they do not actually qualify for, since that, too, is mostly on the honor system, the system that tracks such being unworkable yet.Well, says he doesn't know.BUT, he knows that 7.1 million. Period.The follow up to all this was a couple of noteable appearances by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who immmediately hedged the President's claim of wanting to work with 'both sides of the aisle"...wink, wink, wink....to make the ACA better, and Chris Dodd, who opined with his joy that Democrats had 'abandoned the free enterprise system' to craft the ACA, and it's much better than what free enterprise ever crafted."...abandoned the free enterprise system..."

To mytoby3113: poor people are not denied insurance. Since the 1980s if you cannot afford insurance the government has provided MEDICAID. The mis-named Affordable Care Act (aka Obama care) is an effort for government to control ALL health care in the United States. When the ACA fails, and it will, the ProgLibs will then call for a single provider for All Americans. Do you really want that? "The Republicians have fought tooth and nails against this Insurance but they never offer another solutioon(sic)." That is just the Democratic party mantra. The Republicans HAVE provided alternatives. Some people simply refuse to listen. PT Barnum was right.

That's why Harry Reid should have sent it to committee, revised rewritten like he is supposed to. But NOOOOOOOOO! He wanted a shutdown. Then he and his fellow kool-aid drinkers could claim the Republicans shut it down. Then the two houses would meet in joint committee and resolve differences. Don't they teach that anymore?

Talk about some foolish mush Lang. There is no way to write a bill in the House that will pass harry pelosi's Senate unless it completely capitulated to the dems. The time is passed for Congress to work together. It is time for real leadership to stand up and articulate what needs to be done and then to garner the support from the public. The only thing entrenched politicians understand is public outcry and the threat of losing their seats.

You talk about Congress not doing the right thing and then as soon as someone states unequivocably what his ideas are but they happen to be in direct contrast to the status quo, you deride him for not playing along. Lost as a goose you are. Cruz and Paul and Lee have the ideas that serve this country rather than themselves. It's too bad you can't-or won't see that. Wishy-washy middle-of-the-road same-as-it's-always been won't cut it anymore. We need visionaries to lead us out of this morass and they can't do it by working with those who have been taking advantage of us for years and even decades.

Whether you, I, or the lady down the road likes it, those are the constitutional rules that the legislators have to live with. If you don't like the way the constitution is written, then, by all means go through the process to change it. These very same procedural rules used to kill the House Bills you wanted are the same rules you'd cheer had a Republican Senate used them to kill a Democratic House bill. You can certainly wish to have it any way you want. I guess you can even wish to have it both ways. Chances are you won't get it both ways.

Suppose that Reid had sent it to committee. The likely thing is that it would have been sent back exactly as Reid told everyone listening that would be acceptable--funding everything, including Obamacare. You'd now be saying that the committee, or the Democratic majority shut down the government.

As it turned out, the leaders of both parties got to flex their muscles while wasting a bunch more of our money.

We're never going to get a real working legislature as long as people are willing to applaud episodes like we witnessed leading to the partial shutdown.

The Senate under Harry has truly perfected being the world's most deliberative body. They're still thinking about stuff from 5 years ago.Question:What's the point of even having a Congress, the duly elected reps of the people, co-equal, supposedly, in power to the President, if only legislation amenable to the current Administration is allowed up for debate. By either 'side'. Much less for a vote. Of COURSE the current House knows what they send up won't pass, but NOTHING will with Reed, and won't even be allowed to be talked about, yet the House majority was ALSO duly elected to represent their constituents, and would be derelict to not try to do so. Everything with Harry that does not plant a big wet kiss on POTUS backside is 'dead on arrival'. Only losing the Leadership can remove the malignant little Harry growth from the Body Politic.Oh....wait....I guess that's the whole point....first step to an imperial in deed if not name presidency... keep the subjects at bay.Or, maybe Death By Senate is the New Normal so what passes for a base can be successfully lied to repeatedly about how 'the other side', whichever one that might be, has 'no ideas' and won't 'work together with us'...Why go to all that trouble. The MSM will cover up for all of their favorite sons' indiscretions and just declare all complaints to be 'phony scandals'...or simply ignore anything that sheds a bad light on the Favorite of the Day.One thing for sure, the 'bipartisan' well has been poisoned worse than I've seen it in my lifetime, and I suspect we've entered into a permanent mode of payback is heck, for the foreseeable future. We all will suffer for it, even worse than already.Usually, an Administration would like to be remembered as Most Liked, or Most Statesmanlike, or Most Accomplished....Most Divisive, Arrogant, and Dishonest is a hat trick legacy that would usually not be worked so hard to attain. By anybody.

The obvious above aside, I don't recall ever seeing an entire article pulled from the forums same day out. What happened to the one about the appeals court tossing out the challenge to Yarbrough's candidacy?It was here a couple hours ago...Ask a simple question, and...[beam]

I'm not sure it qualifies as communication-possibly closer to jounalistic voyeurism. The GCDN certainly has a right to monitor comments but if Auld's is having every single comment sent to his email I'd think he probably has too much time on his hands.

A Rand survey has stated that of the "7.1 million" alleged to have enrolled in the Un-ACA, only about 27% were previously uninsured. The rest were previously insured but had their coverage stripped away by the Act. Pretty amazing lack of success. It also said less than 50% of that 27% have actually paid their premiums thereby establishing coverage.

Commenters like mytoby and dumb47 and Servitude and Lang can hype their president's "achievements" all they want. The man's a massive liar and he and his party believe that's all fair when it comes to achieving and retaining power.

If Reid had sent it to committee it would have been re-written as you say. Then the Bill would go to a joint committee for a revision agreeable to BOTH houses. There are items that both Democrats and Republicans would agree to fund. That's the way it has been done until now. Harry Reid is responsible for stalemate in Washington. kevjlang, can you tell me how Ted Cruz is is supposed to have shut down government? I understand the "why" but it makes no sense to anyone who anyone who knows how the legislature really works.

I try to remind myself that the operative method used by the current Adminsitration, and others, to avoid consequences entirely or reduce the impact of whatever they've done yet again is to stall and delay until enough people lose interest, or shift attention.Nobody can be forced to run plays or even watch the scoreboard, but we're all in the game...Do like I do the anonymous trolls' and race baiters' ... don't read any it

LOL...I was thinking the same thing. But, I can't resist. Here's another.

To bevoresident and gecroix, and ruddiken, and anyone else who is so hell-bent to "trash" our President...I'd like to know how you know that the #s of Obamacare registrants aren't what the administrations says they are. After all, they've been pretty forthcoming throughout the internet crash foils and kinks. And, puhleeeeze, do we need to have 10 or more internet links? I want to hear your own words as to why you've remained so bitter about our President.

sverige, have you noticed that President BO announced his numbers on April Fools Day? I could send you links that show how this number is incorrect and misleading but I hear you do not like links. Not a sausage man, eh?

Did I say that Cruz shut it down? Of course not. But, go ahead and write whatever you want and attribute it to me. Are you sure you aren't bvresident with another screen name? You both seem to like to attribute things to me that I haven't written. I guess that if I state that both sides are to blame, that, apparently, really means that the side you're for is 100% to blame. I guess there are no shades of gray. I guess I'm just a troll here.....

Well, we have to (at times) hand it to the journalistic miinds for coming up with articles/topics that encourage over 120 thread entries. I think they write them on purpose so that we can all read all the unbridled bitterness that some folks possess over things that will help people in this country in the long run.

As I've mentioned before, think of how things would have gone with the railroads, interstate road works, and the world wide web if the soothsayers had their wishes to keep things "status quo". What that really means is their desire for folks in need to simply disappear. Many articles have indicated that folks are finding the ACA to be a better deal than trying to find a plan on their own.

That doesn't sound so bad, does it? Then again, I say to the bitter anti-Obama, anti-persons of color soothsayers to find your county roads that you helped fund (LOL) to travel around in (don't use our national interstates). Don't frequent a business that has received their products through trucks running on the interstate system and/or trains running through Union Pacific Railroad. Quit your job and go find one out of country (or invest your untaxed millions there with Romney) since you can't participate no longer in soc. security. Stop using the toilet and tap water - you're now undeserving to use the city of Galveston (or suburbia Clear Lake, L. City) municipal water systems. Let's stop the government's impact on car safety. After all, those half dozen or so folks who died from their ignitions failing are a drop in the bucket, as far as ultimately getting government out of our lives.

Well, kevjlang, I have made an informal diagnosis of the ilk who slam governmental programs that try to help those in need. Conslucsive result is actually twofold: First (with the use of DSM-IV), they suffer from narcissistic personality disorder since its illness definition states "a person who is excessively preocupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige, and vanity." Oddly enough, it affects 1% of the population (where have we heard that before)? However, many of the bitter threadmakers here disproportionately inflate the figures (similarily to how they claim the Obamacare sign-up numbers have been "inflated"). Seems as though these types of posters gravitate towards this form of venue. A launching/sounding board, so to speak, since they've likely alienated their relatives at the family reunions. Secondly, there exists disorders where an individual simply cannot sympathize with others who are less fortunate. These are the folks who suffer from "antisocial personality disorder", wheras exhibitions of "high negative emotionality, low conscientiousness, deceitfulness" proliferate. Oddly enough, the narcissistic and antisocial disorders often overlap and are personfied through community newspaper forums where they attack sitting Presidents with incessent internet links from non-factual rightist sources. [wink]

sverige, the Constitution of the United States provides for Federal Government Control and funding of only TWO things: Provide for the common defense and regulate interstate commerce.Railroads-Interstate CommerceInterstate Roads-Interstate CommerceWorld Wide Web-Interstate CommerceACA -?????????????????????????????Everything else belongs to the states or to the people. If you want to re-write the Constitution do it legally through Amendment. Democratic Presidents do it through Judicial appointments.We need a Supreme Court that bases its decisions on the Constitution of the United States, not on political whim.

SCOTUS ruling yesterday striking down limits on political donations came with the expected blowback from the usual suspects predicting the death of democracy as a result. Just like back when Citizens United was ruled on, one candidate railed about the end of our political system. Short term memory seems to be endemic in them and him, as no mention was made of who the first presidential candidate to blow right past campaign finace limits was. Care to guess? The part about the end of the political system WAS correct, as the system does not provide for ignoring laws one does not find convenient (at least outside Galveston County...) or for governance by decree, yet, the same complainer has perfected just that.Also, while deriding the Evil Americans, the Koch brothers, as intending to buy the Presidency, no mention made of the millions of anonymous contributions to one candidates campaigns made via credit card, and the transactions originating in foreign countries. Oddly, to this day, no accounting has been made of them. No mention made of the Good George Soros, who has spent some 8 billion plus bucks on liberal candidates and causes.I'm sure these were simple oversights.Or perhaps just lumped in with the other 'phony scandals'...Failure? No way.Our POTUS has been the most successful man in the history of the office at avoiding responsibility, and convincing so many people that doing so is a good thing.It helps that too many of them have the same propensities...

Now, about that oil spill in galveston Bay circa 2014.That was George Bush's fault...[wink]

Well, bevoresident, at least I'm offering forum-appropriate opinions, as opposed to cut and paste links from a dozen "news" sources. Want to engage, at least, to the level of carlosrponce? I shall do so. So, here it is:

Carlosrponce - What you're thinking is out-of-date beliefs. We're simply not in the same societal situation as we were in the mid 1700s. Through the decades, we have realized that the quality of life for all holds betterment when we "pool together" to add resources. It's a basic philosophical belief we have indeed had since probably the 1800s. Isolationism ceased to exist in our country. We help each other and abroad.

So goes it with national roads, pension system (soc. sec), public sewer/water, and now health care. In actuality, if my HIS 101 for non-majors serves correctly, it was the ancient Romans who actually began the public sewer system, along with governmental principles we follow today. That's the way it is. 'Aint gonna change. The Constitution, I believe, was written by the forefathers with the thought that times will change. It is used much as the Bible, as a tool for guidance, but surely not for word-for-word, literal clad-proof adherence.

So, bevoresident, does this sound bitter and left-wing? Gonna run me out of the country? LMAO

Is PT Barnum one of the guys who started the circus, aka republican party? ROTFL

But, as mytoby3113 asked...What is the republicans' solutioon? Answer - they have none. As any managerial person would say to his/her employee, if you whine about something wrong you need to have a suggestion as to a solution to the problem. BTW - mytoby3113...aren't you Evelyn from when before they changed over the forum formats?

Servitude, what in God's name are you babbling about now? You're not addressing anything in particular but rather throwing a bunch of do-do against the wall to see what sticks. It sounds like some reference to socialism where you're using the "pooling of resources" rather than the actuality of taking from those who have to give to those who have not. No where, no how, and no time do you-or Lang-ever talk about providing for those who are truly unable to care for themselves with our tax dollars but instead wax on and on about taking more of our tax dollars to waste on fraudulent entitlements.

My questions to you are: why do you resort to calling me and others racist simply because we vehemently disagree with your president's destruction of our country? Why do you always interject race into the picture? Are you unable to offer a factual basis for your opinions? Are you unable to debate on the merits of someone's statements? The first thing you do is start accusing us of despising the poor and being racist. That's not indicative of a very deep thought process.

Anytime you want to address something that I actually have stated, I'm here. But, if you want to keep on pretending that I'm stating something I'm not, then, have fun living in your demented state. I'm more than happy to make and defend my own points. Don't feel the need to address your vivid imagination.

I triple-dog dare you to find one place where I've advocated taking tax dollars to fund fraudulent entitlements.

I don't know what you do for your day job, but if your fiction and fantasy prose is half as good in long form as it is in bits and pieces on this forum, you could probably quit that day job.

I "ditto" what kev says. I have never espoused catering to those who don't help themselves. I am not an advocate for the "entitlement group". What I do believe in is just what I stated: to pool resources in order to cover as many people as possible so that some folks can get some health care. That is what a country with social awareness does.

As for your feeling the need to defend yourself from accusation of racism, go ahead. Your ill feelings toward mankind is likely an issue you'll soon have to meet with your Maker.

Kevjlang, with all due respect, and I do have some because you have the stones to have a name whether we agree or not, here's a little reminder:I lost track of the number of times I admonished you for 'reading between the lines' of what I wrote in these forums and assuming when actually reading the words would do the trick.Were YOU 'demented' for doing that, often, too? Have a nice day...[smile]

sverige, I am surprised you don't accuse me of thinking like a 1st century man since my core beliefs come from a book written at that time. We do not hate the current president. It is within our right to disagree with him with all due "rspect". We just see a different future for the United States -all "57" of them.

Well, IMHO you don't run the gamit of general bitterness toward fellow man, as do the depressional gloom and doom contributers around here. Now, yes, I do think you might have a bit of a mindset that simply doesn't work now as it may have in the 50s and 60s.

I do think that folks (not you) who call the President a "liar" and constantly refer him as "Hussein" have issues that need more than pointing out at this venue. There are services available for such those who are infected. All they have to do is seek it, and I'm sure either ACA or their existing plan will cover much of it. The title of this article is "Obama's Presidency Has Been a Failure". If that is the case, then our own republic would be at an alarming standing regarding fear, folks would be losing their religion (not the case, church attendance is rising). I just don't see armegeddon. I'm afraid these fearmongers are getting "up there" in age and are thinking that life was better in "the good old days". Perhaps folks felt more carefree when they were thinner, less wrinkled, and didn't have bad knees.

Gecroix, I do recall that, and I recall the learning process it took to get me to stop. I thank you for it, too! I hope that I've made strides in changing my ways. I fully understand the frustration of arguing against a strawman that someone thinks is wearing my clothes.

What I recall, too, is that when we differed, there was always a willingness to respond, generally, with courtesy and respect.

I might add, too, that, despite sverige1 using a screen name, he still has the stones to respond to what others state in response to his postings. A real troll would just grab a screen name, post some stuff to lite a flame, and never return until cooking up a new screen name. Trolls aren't likely to spend $14/month for the opportunity to start flame wars. They prefer much cheaper entertainment.

If you remember the days after 9-11-2001, the fear induced by those events filled the churches, people remembered their religion. "[C]hurch attendance is rising", due to the messages from Medjugorje and the preaching from Protestant preachers like John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, and Perry Stone and Messianic Jews like Sid Roth. Although I do not see Armageddon in the close future, I do see a major world-wide political change on this planet and Obama's Presidency especially his economic and foreign policy is a contributing factor. Be prepared.

Kevjlang, when I say dismissed, I mean dismissed.I've yet to run across a spotless leopard.. and have anything better to do than waste time on such...

So, other than that, here we go again until my next need for a break.Persnally, I like the other side pushback. Makes me think about alternative possibilities.Even the wrong ones...[beam]The key to successful interchange is to have a smart mind, not a smart as.k me about the weather...[wink]

Well Lang, since the forums in Letters to the Editor only go back so far and I haven't been archiving your comments, then all I can do is provide the basis based on my readings of your comments. Whenever the conversation goes to the spending on entitlements and the waste and fraud thereof, it's my recollection that you believe the fraud and waste cannot and will not be addressed so the only thing to do is to use more tax dollars to continue the march to insanity. So if that's not the impression you want to leave then perhaps your writing should be clarified.

As long as you continue to give accolades to the flame-throwing hate-monger Servitude, who calls everyone a racist if they don't support your president, then it's possible you you'll be associated with his comments. Let me know if I've ever called you anything other than a democrat. But then again, that may be vile enough to upset you.

Let's look back at previous Presidential eras. George Bush allegedly knew there were no MWODs in Iraq, convicted as a war crimial by special war crime tribunals, he has record of alcoholism. 911 occurred prior to that. Yet and still, most of us persevered, minus the unfortunate demises of the dedicated soldiers who served post 911.

Bill Clinton was also considered a substance abuser. Voted by one House to be impeached, left much to be desired in relation to the traditional marriage concept. We persevered.

Ronald Reagan, accused of ignoring the AIDs epidemic until his last years in office. Iran-Contra affair -selling of weapons to Iran. Most of us older than 30 remember. HUD rigging scandal, among others. We got through that.

J. Carter - "too detail oriented". Energy crisis, Afghanistan invasion, Moscow boycott. Voters decided to make a different turn to Reagan. When Obama ends his term, the voters will have their say.

So, you see, this short history lesson illustrates how it would take a whole lot more than a couple of terms of Obama to "ruin this country". Keep wishing he's sooooo bad. Your next President might be a WOMAN, and of "color". Watch out.

I had to look up MWOD on-line.MWOD Members Without DependantsMWOD Multiple Words of the Day (military aviation radio frequency jumping system)"George Bush allegedly knew there were no MWODs in Iraq."If you meant WOMD, then I understand your allegation.As for Ronald Reagan, yes he was accused of ignoring the AIDS epidemic but only by the extremists but the facts show that funding began in September 1982 to research AIDS during Reagan's 2nd year of his presidency. This was the same month that the term "AIDS" was used.(AIDS.GOV)

Yes, I have said that fixing the fraud is something that we're not likely to see. However, I don't think I've ever said we shouldn't push for it. Only that it's, unfortunately, a losing cause at this point merely because both parties benefit significantly from the waste and fraud, and, while they would like to get rid of the waste and fraud from "the other guy's" programs, they don't push very hard because they know that, even with a majority, they couldn't do it without hurting themselves. If they got rid of all the waste in Welfare, there would be just as many Conservative and Republican supporters hurt as Democratic supporters. On the campaign trail, lots of candidates talk about eliminating waste. When they get into office, they find out how all that waste benefits them far more by being there than being gone, and they wind up getting eerily quiet on the issue.

My other point on this is that even if they did focus on waste--despite the hazards--while very helpful in the road to budget responsibility, the net benefit would be a temporary slowdown in our runaway spending. Most of the savings would wind up being allocated to new or expanded programs that provide political benefit, but would likely have little effect on the deficit and debt.

Do I wish it were different? Of course. However, my overall view of our political process is cynical and skeptical. I've seen too many swings from left to right to left with little benefit left behind from either of the purported nirvanas. Sure, there is a lot of sweet smells in many of the political ideals espoused by both sides. However, what actually transpires when we leave them in charge turns out to make skunks smell sweet.

As for sverige1, occasionally I make direct comments to try to real him toward my perception of reality, but most of the time, you, carlosrponce, gecroix, DottyOA, or someone else has already pounced. Even when I do agree with what he writes, it's generally to a much lesser degree than his statements. I do support his right to write his opinions, and to defend them.

I don't particularly like anyone trying to label me. I especially disagree with attempts to compartmentalize me. Much or your discussion technique sure comes across as label first, and let the label be the strawman you argue against. I'd prefer to discuss the points without the prejudices that labels introduce.

"Flame-throwing hatemonger", LOL. Be honest: When you're with your family and you exude your disgust toward the entitlement sector, don't you include non-white minorities in the discussion? Bet ya' do.

I would be the farm if one of your conservative Presidents had proposed a health care plan, you would be singing his praises (HIS, b/c I bet you'd never vote for a woman). You'd be fine with some folks "losing" what they had because, well because the alternative (republican plan) is something more that they otherwise wouldn't have in the 1st place. Y'all would then be coming up with a "don't bite the [republican] hand that feeds you". I sometimes think bvresident and DottyOA aren't too keen on my "calling" on your prejudices because it's not unlike the Great Kazoo telling Fred Flinstone on his shoulder that he's once again done wrong.

The reality is that this legislated plan has hardly been executed to be a candidate for an evaluative phase. I'm willing to give it until late 2016. If it's a debacle by that date, then I will join in your angst and "hindsight 20/20" wishes that this country should have elected a different person in '08 and '12.

Servitude, you typify the Left's inability to reconcile their president's words with his actions since his ascension as the next messiah. You're left with calling everyone who disagrees a racist and worse. It's okay. It proves my points. You can't justify why your president has lied so much, performed so badly, and failed so miserably. Keep on yapping, it only provides proof of the Left's unwillingness and inability to handle the truth.

Whether bvresident or DottyOA are racists, it shouldn't be part of the rationale behind disagreement with their points. Also, whether the programs were put out by Republicans or Democrats should not be an indication of their merit. If a program is worthwhile, beneficial, effective, and efficient should be fair game for discussion.

I would like to think that our judgements are right or wrong based on other criteria than whether we're conservative, liberal, racist, or some other attempted all-encompassing label.

The success or failure of the Obama administration will likely not be determined by our generation, but by those that follow us. Within our own generation, there are lots of people that think that Obama is just not well-suited to the job. Others think that having a Congress bent on ensuring that he's the least successful president is the problem. Others think that the general dysfunction in Washington--President and Congress combined with the bureaucracy and the lobbies, is behind it all. Others believe that the economy and the way we've adapted (or failed to) has been an overwhelming hurdle. Others believe that his predecessors left him a wobbly foundation to work from. There's probably truth in all of it. Regardless, if this presidency is a failure, I think that the President does not bear the blame by himself. He, and his office, just aren't THAT powerful. Our constitution ensures that. Unless we want to argue that our constitution, after more than 200 years, is failing.

Never mentioned anymore is in Obama's first two years he had his own both houses of Congress in hip pocket and still managed to do squat except run up the debt to levels never imagined in such a short time, 'invest' in 'green energy projects' utter failures and taxpayer boondoggles, and saddle us with the ACA, itself an utter debacle if one believes the goal really was to provide 'affordable health care to all', and a resounding success if one believes it was designed to wreck the health care system to force government single payer.Also never mentioned is NOBODY wants to help or work with anybody who can't give ANY speach or conversation without badmouthing ALL who disagree with them, then immediately professing a lying, two-faced 'willingness to work with anybody'.Guys a liar. His choice, not ours.Incompetent. His choice, not ours.Arrogant , self-absorbed, feckless, and petulant. His choice, not ours.The most divisive President since Hoover. His choice, not ours.Other than being a waste of skin in which to put someone in an empty suit masquerading as a President, he's done a grand job.Of course, imho...After 5 years of failures, the real enemy of the nation is plain to see, and it's NOT President Barack Obama. It's the pie-eyed people who still thinks he's doing great...Can't fix that.Maybe next time we'll elect somebody because of what they can do, and not because of how they look and sound.

Whether I'm a racist? Really Lang, why don't you give an example of my racism because you obviously agree with your little leftist buddy. Typical of the mush we get from you. Lot's of words but no substance and certainly no firm position on anything-other than it always started with Bush.

Servitude, you're a little coward hiding behind anonymous names while hurling your hate speech. Lang might give you cover but I won't. You can't provide a single comment I've ever made on here that's racist other than I happen to despise a lying president who happens to be black. Just to reaffirm my statement-you're a gutless little coward hiding behind anonymous names. Standard modus operandi for the left-wing loonies.

Kevjlang, the users of the 'racist' label on these forums have invariably been, or I should say at least were back when I bothered to read their drivel, weasels hiding behind internet names. This type of stupidity and diversion, sans any proof, marginalizes situations where race truly IS an issue, no matter which race it is getting marginalized.I'm going out on a limb and guessing you meant your comment another way from what it came across, and did not mean to legitimize in any way the hystrionoc mouthings of the usual suspects too darn dishonest to back their comments up with anything other than phony allegations. These types have to hide out to spout off in safety.There's a difference between being wrong because one made an error, and with being wrong on purpose, like the clowns doing the 'baiting'.The bar they've set for dishonesty is so low, that anybody should be able to easily stay well above it.Please.Do so.Be obstreporous, as usual, but don't legitimize the speculative denigrations of others by way of side-armed rereference.BTW, I'm no spokesperson for anybody but myself.I just happen to agree with bvresident, who also regularly puts his real name out there.I've got no beef with contributors who choose to stay hidden but at least know how to post like adults with some semblance of manners. If the GDN required real names, there'd only be a dozen or so entries....b-o-r-i-n-g

I also believe it's immaterial whether any of us are racists in relation to how our government runs. That is, unless our decisions in our own worklives and social lives have an effect on our fellow man/womankind.

Our most prevelant problem in this country is the divisiveness of our leaders, and we are at a crossroads in this society in which the older generations are steadily diminishing, along with middle-classedness. That's the worst tragedy, and hopefully we'll have a mindset in this country that is accepting of the social awareness that is needed to improve things. Perhaps soon we will be somewhere in between Europe and Canada on that front.

I don't think kevjlang thinks ya'll are really "bad" people any more than I do. His statement neither confirms nor denies whether you're racist, evil, or substandard in character. But, do any of our words truly upset you? Are your sensibilities that delicate?

What seems evident is that it looks live bvresident and gecroix neglected to take their happy pills this Sunday. Ya'll might want to "chill", and hopefully you found a sermon, bible entry, hymn or sports show today that uplifted your spirits. Again, whether any of us is truly racists or a dishonest person in day-to-day life, that is something we'll all confront with our Maker. I doubt if our little community newspaper entries will qualify for any mortal sinning in the eyes of our feared spiritual Leader(s).

bvresident, another example of you trying to read stuff between lines that do not exist. If you are a racist, I have no basis for knowing that. Frankly, whether you are a racist or not, I don't give a darn. I will make every attempt to comment merely on the points you try to make. I have no plans for making blanket dismissals of your points based on whether I think you're a liberal, a racist, a race-baiter, a conservative, or someone in pink polka-dot pajamas. If you are any or all of the above, those are things that I'll happily leave you to resolve yourself.

I just don't think it adds any value to the debate to try to figure out what categories to lump people into. There is so much more substance in the issues that transcends social, political, or religious labels. We are all Americans, right?

gecroix, the point I'm trying to make is that trying to label people as racists, or any other attempt at stereotypical labeling does nothing to enable honest discussion. It's done, generally, to either put people on the defensive, or to allow the accuser to dismiss the points at-hand without any attempt to counter the points.

For this discussion, there seem to be two prevalent points that keep coming up: Some set of people are incapable of judging the president's performance because they're blind liberal sheep, and other set of people are incapable of judging the president's performance because they're racists that merely can't stand the thought of a black man defiling the office. I think that whether one is a blind liberal sheep or a racist, there's no need in classifying them that way, as once you get them trying to explain their points, their arguments will quickly collapse anyway. On the flip side, if the only way you can attempt to prove your point is to call the other person a racist or liberal, or whatever, you're doing more to hurt your argument than theirs.

For what it's worth, I used "whether" as the pure hypothetical word that it is. I had no intention of it being perceived as a synonym for "the fact that", or however else people decided to translate it.

I thought the rest of my posting made it clear that not only do I not care whether people are racists, arguing from that perspective is not conducive to honest dialogue.

I believe that discussing points is far more productive than discussing the people that make them.

I'm certainly not going to make judgments about people based merely on what they post on these forums. Without proof that the opposite is true, I'll take the approach that this isn't much like what you hear about dating sites. It's quite possible that none of us is really much like what we post here. Except me :-)

None of this is important, but what is important is to what direction this country is going. More than that, here's something to ponder: Does it make a difference who our President is? Who thinks Obamacare will eventually be repealed? We're at a point of no return. It's here to stay, like the railroads, drones, and birth control. BTW - I saw a story last night that said that we will be having much more drones flying over us, with the potential of them crashing. I might be come more afraid of drones than nationalized health care.

I don't know whether repeal will be tried or not after this year's elections or the 2016 elections. If I had a farm to bet, I'd be pretty close to willing to bet it that there will be amendment to it. Ten years from now, if it still exists, it will have a much different appearance to it. Hopefully, whatever complexion our heath care system has at the time, it will be one that most citizens and politicians are committed to.

Servitude, I repeat myself. You're a spineless coward. You demean not only those who post on here the facts about this president but you also attack our families. That's the hypocrisy of the left-always trying to appear informed and open to discussion but quite unable to deal with the facts and resorting to hiding in the shadows and using one excuse after another as to why you won't come out of the closet. The facts are stubborn, this president was elected on his skin color and to support a social experiment that's failed massively and miserably. Keep on being what you are-you convince no one other than Lang that you have valid viewpoints supported by anything other than wild-eyed fanaticism and hate-mongering.

Let sverige1 and the validity of his viewpoints stand or fall on their own. I have nothing to do with the determination of validity. I'm just another lowly peon here expressing and defending my own viewpoints.

WILL BE amended?Who's kidding who.POTUS himself has already illegally 'amended' his own ACA it over 30 times.The ACA as passed by Democrats and signed into law DOES NOT EXIST anymore in the form it was passed, and THAT is 100% due to POTUS, who, lucky for him, has enough ignorant base that he can keep harping on Republican attempts to amend or repeal, while HE, HIMSELF, has done that very thing. Again, illegally. Interestingly, the delays he's instituted himself mirror those that Republicans wanted to make last summer, and even exceed them, but POTUs said NO WAY. He gave himself a waiver from having to follow his own law like he gave thousands of his cronies, and his 'base', aptly named, blame the Republicans for that!!A textbook case of speach making based on lies being accepted as truth by people who can't be confused with facts once their mind has been made up for them.It begs the question: Who ya gonna believe? POTUS, or your own lying eyes...[wink]

My point was merely about legislative amendments. As for the executive manipulations, I'll defer to the constitutional experts with regards to the constitutionality or legality of the maneuvers. I would prefer that we had an executive branch and legislative branch that were mutually willing to discuss things openly and honestly, but, alas, that's not what our voters chose.

Well, bvresident, your constant anger expressions and repeated references to me as "coward" are feelings and words I will take and cross bear as a Christian would. I forgive you in regard of your constant name-calling. I can take it, as Jesus endured much worse fate.

Now, to the subject at hand: I readily take a more philosophical point of view when it comes to matters of social justice. Quite simply, if our federal government would learn to know when to economize, then these social awareness items such as nationalized health care can be earmarked and executed, and eventually we will look at this governmental entity as "routine" as medicaid, social security, et cetera.

Interesting that a few weeks ago, a middle school aged youngster proposed that the a change to New Times Roman font in printed federal documents could save up to $370 million a year. That savings could cover the ACA medical insurance plan for millions of our fellow Americans.

Wrong again Lang. Voters choose those who support their political ideology and it's up to them to work with whoever is across the table from them. You also stated recently that if your president fails it won't be his fault. That shows a brazen lack of recognition that the President-whoever it is-sets the tone for leadership and working together. Even after Clinton was exposed for his sexual perversity in the Oval Office while his wife and daughter slept upstairs, he went on to make things work with the Republican Party and leave office with some accomplishments. This president began with his famous, "elections have consequences", and hasn't stopped his quest to divide and conquer rather than build relationships and compromise.

"[A] change to New Times Roman font in printed federal documents could save up to $370 million a year. That savings could cover the ACA medical insurance plan for millions of our fellow Americans" - Don't worry, the way bureaucracy works, the government will take that $370 million savings and turn it into a deficit in no time.

Coming from someone who has repeatedly scoffed at and denigrated those of us who believe in God, your statement is typical of those on the left who get cornered and are looking for a way to cover for their actions thereby invoking prayer for being caught and exposed. Your condemnation of other's faith, your incessant rants accusing other's of being racist when you have absolutely no evidence of such and your cowardly attacks while hiding behind an anonymous name only serve as reminders who it actually is in this country that perpetrates racism, intolerance, and hatred.

I stated that it won't be his fault? I think you might need to read again. I believe that what I stated was that the blame isn't his alone.

Have you ever worked for a boss you didn't like, or one you didn't believe deserved the job? If so, what did you believe were your prime responsibilities? Make sure he was exposed as the nitwit he was, despite the potential impact to the company, or did you and your fellow employees do everything they could to ensure success despite the boss?

Personally, I think that workers whose stated vow was to ensure the boss failed are at least as irresponsible as the people that promoted their boss.

If our representatives are more concerned with whether the president fails than whether the country succeeds, I think they share the blame when the country fails.

Perhaps Obama shouldn't have been elected even once. However, he was elected, not just once, but twice. If the voters made a mistake, that's one thing. However, my belief is that there have been plenty of opportunities for Congress to have some legislative successes DESPITE the president. It would have been nice to at least see Congress try, but they'd rather politic than legislate. Sure, passing bills that might not align with the President's agenda may not be easy, but who told those clowns that they were running for an easy job?

Blame Obama all you want. I'm sure he deserves plenty of it. Just don't stop with him. He's had plenty of "help".

Mytoby3113 has a point. The republicans need to accompany their ACA health program misgivings with some proposed solutions of an alternative and/or amendments to the plan. As kev mentioned, there likely will be amendments.

If, by any chance more substantive proposals to repeal the Act are down the road, it may be an uphill battle. A similar battle that the anti-abortion protesters have in regard to Roe-v-Wade - the desire to overturn a ruling doesn't seem to become a reality in the near future.

I think the next step for the republicans is to cement their party's disassociative tendencies and find a way to keep tabs on the next decade's repurcussions of the ACA plan.

"The [R]epublicans need to accompany their ACA health program misgivings with some proposed solutions of an alternative" HERE IT IS AGAIN, ONE MORE TIME BY POPULAR REQUEST!http://americanxt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Freedom-and-Empowerment-Plan.pdfAs many times as I post this link you Proglibs keep asking for it. It is nothing new, just a compilation of conservative ideas that have been put forth the last few decades. The ProgLibs either have refused to read these proposals or don't know how to cut and paste the link. My last posting of this link was on this very forum at 3:52 pm on Sat, April 5, 2014.

I believe that's opinion. Even if it's not really his opinion, he is posting opinions that people do have. I doubt that any of us really believes we're going to change the opinions of the people we respond to here. Maybe it makes us think a little bit more about what we really believe and how to express it, but I certainly don't think that, even if I agree with you, that I'm going to change your opinion about anything. Maybe if sverige1 or David Michael Smith started agreeing with you.... :-)

Carlos, as an ex-teacher you should know that there is NO WAY to stop a person from being ignorant if they insist on it, and it does no good to confuse with facts.The only person who needs to come up with fixes for the ACA is Barack Obama, who has PERSONALLY seen fit to dissect his own law over 30 times, from cronyism to waivers to delays to exemptions to just plain rule by monarchial decree. The ACA as originally signed into law is DEAD. And the guy who killed it was it's own father...For a guy who spent two years doing little else, and STILL has to gut his law to avoid even faster catastrophic results, he's the Ultimate Hypocrite to be telling anybody else that they must fix his mess.Maybe if he'd try opening his mouth just ONCE in over 5 years and NOT take cheap shots at the very people he then claims to 'want to work with', he'd have some credibility, even though still no ability.Buy, noooo...no need to, when we can see so many examples of his base that give a whole new meaning to the term.

Why is it so important to you to know who's posting? In case you see them in a restaurant so that you know whether to buy them a drink or to throw one in their face?

I think that if sverige1 were really making stuff up, we'd know who he is, because he'd be making lots of money off what you feel is social and political fantasy.

Ever seriously consider why so many surveys are conducted anonymously? I think that when it comes to political opinion, we're better off if people don't pull punches. If using a screen name makes someone more willing to let it fly, I say, let it fly.

Kevjlang, the voters chose legislators that they wanted to represent THEM, not to bend over to the executive branch.It is fundamentally dishonest to lay the blame for gridlock on the legislators when only ONE of them has refused to advance any ideas, suggestions, or bills of the opposing Party to even the level of consideration and conversation, in the Senate.Worse, is the Executive who's 1st comment in his Inaugural in 2009 was that he was 'willing to work with anyone' , a statement repeated often since then, but in his FIRST contact with the opposition, told the House Majority leader that 'We won', effectively telling him to shut up and do as he was told. THAT, too, has been effectively repeated multiple times since.So, when the two of the people necessary to complete the law making triangle of Senate, House, and Executive REFUSE to even participate, and top that off with a litany of personal attacks, and even outright lies, in almost every single speach, of hundreds, so far, it is a flat out lie on the part of the Public to blame only one side, or, perhaps some of them are simply too stupid to understand how their own government is supposed to work, so are simply repeating the lies of others. That so many in these forums repeat the same ignorance of facts and government makes me suspect that my calling the 'progressive' agenda a cancer that eats people's brain away just may be something the AMA needs to get to studying more...?[unsure]

Um, yes, most of the voters did do just that. Most of the voters actually voted for Democratic legislators to work with their Democratic president. Most of the Legislative Districts, however, voted in Republican legislators to work with their Republican candidate for president.

How many times have Obama and Boehner sat down together to work out deals that the rest of the house rejected?

I don't particularly care to argue over a difference in degree of blame between the White House and the Congress, but I see no validity in a claim that the House of Representatives is blameless.

If you've listened to any of the dialogue spewed by politicians over the past 5+ years, you know that the personal attacks are pretty heavily broadcast throughout the spectrum. Frankly, there's more gentlemanly conduct portrayed on football fields and hockey rinks than in Washington, DC. Neither side has made any attempt to rise above the fray.

If Obama is such a despicable character, why does Boehner bother playing golf with him?

Sure Lang, that's an easy one. When people hide behind phony names-just like on any other online forum-they tend to say things about others that they don't feel is necessary to back up in any way. That's the cowardly part. My question to you is why are you so concerned with taking up for Servitude?

"Let sverige1 and the validity of his viewpoints stand or fall on their own." Obviously you don't mean that because you always come to his rescue when's he's exposed for saying the ridiculous stuff he says.

"I think that if sverige1 were really making stuff up, we'd know who he is, because he'd be making lots of money off what you feel is social and political fantasy."

That's a pretty silly comment in support of someone who pretty much acts like a fool on this forum. I'm finished here. Servitude knows what he is without me telling him again. If you want to keep writing equally ridiculous defenses for him then have at it.

Well, I think of many of these nationally known high profile politicians as not unlike Hollywood stars or professional wrestlers. They bask in the publicity stints, and playing golf is but one of the many photo-op events in their - ahem - working day.

That's why Boehner and Obama play golf. They are amongst the elititst millionaires of whom us regular folks can hardly identify.

They've sat down together as many times as the White House has invited it. It's a top down hierarchy in DC. What is that...about 3 times, in 5 years?The trick to that working even if token effort is made is that neither sit-downer cannot immediately go out and badmouth the other at stump speaches across the nation. It sort of evaporites any semblance of meeting congeniality, wouldn't you say. Three guesses as to the responsible person for that. Would YOU want to work with anyone who walked out of a meeting with you at work and immediately told everybody in earshot you were fat, dumb, and ugly, but he still 'wanted to work with you"? If so, then you've got a big problem that needs attention.Perhaps we need to review further the difference between working with someone, and with kissing their backside and going along with whatever they say. I can help with that distinction, because I never had a work atmosphere that required lips to but_. The conservatives I know are generally less prone to enjoying the smell back there, much less eating in that location.Now, we need to revisit that read-what-I-wrote-not-what-fits-the-rebuttal thingy, because I didn't absolve anyone from blame. I merely said, accurately, that if two out of 3 won't budge even an inch, then blaming 3# for failure is a big fat whopper. Especially when #3 has a few bills and items for consideration languishing in the Senate after passing the House...wait for it....months/years ago.I am unaware, but may be wrong, of any items sent to the House by either POTUS or the Senate that did not at least get discussed and debate...Why play golf with him? Well, after only 3 work-related invites or so, might as well try to Plan B.Where would you try to meet up with somebody...where they usually are, or rarely are?That pretty much rules out the Oval Office, and leaves the choices of shooting for meeting at either a golf course, or AF1 on the way to another million dollar taxpayer funded 15 minute stump speach where you will be damned personally or in absentia by association...both have given hundreds of such opportunities...[beam]

I'm sorry, I must have mistaken the guy that looks like Boehner that's poked at Obama's character as Boehner himself. I can never tell the evil twins apart. I must not have been watching closely enough to see the pictures of the one with a halo.

If Boehner didn't keep the bulk of his comments as being sharply against Obama, he couldn't win re-election to his seat nor his speakership. There's no room at or near the top of either party for someone that's conciliatory.

I certainly don't want to single Boehner out. After all, he has shown a willingness to deal, but the rest of the house has shown much less willingness to go along with the deals that Boehner is willing to make.

I certainly don't think that Obama is doing all he can do to break the gridlock or change the tone of the debate, but I don't see many Republicans that would welcome the opportunity to deal with him, and I don't think that the Democrats would appreciate him not pushing the agenda as much. No one in DC is really interested in solving problems. That interrupts the never-ending campaign stumps.

So, your issue doesn't seem to be as much that he's using a fake name but that you don't think he's taking on the challenge to back up some of the things he says. That's fair. How about instead of responding in kind, if he were to be challenged more to support his claims that conservatives are out of touch, Bible thumping, racists?

My internet explorer won't open up this link. It might be a site with a virus. For that reason, I question the accuracy and legitimacy of sites like these claiming to delineate true writtten republican alternatives to ACA.

sverige, I hate to tell you but you are no longer in control of your computer. Obama and his minions have taken control. I am operating Windows XP and Mozilla Firefox that was in use when Brendan Eich was still CEO. The newer Windows have a built in government monitoring system. Don't worry. There are other ways to get the information but you must be careful or the IRS will come knocking. Do a web search. I use yahoo.com. The government wants you to use Google. Search for "Bobby Jindal" and "health care". Don't worry, there is no virus on this site.Search the truth if you are bold enough. I'll pray for you brave soldier.[crying]

Who was that guy who whispered into the ear of Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying, "Tell President Putin that after I'm reelected,...I will have more flexibility and mobility to make a deal" ...not knowing the microphone was still turned on, and all the networks picked up on the plan?-1). Governor Schwarzenegger‎2). Harry Truman3). Joe Biden4). Roger Goodell5). Fidel Castro6). Governor Rick Perry

What the 'progressives' simply don't have the capacity to comprehend, or are simply too dishonest to admit, or both, is that a whole lot of people don't give a darn about excusesmade to try and cover for the incompetency of an elected official, or the dishonesty, or the arrogance, or any combination of such.I don't care about who's the first of anything. It's utterly meaningless, because we did not (supposedly) elect a 'first President', just a President.Supposedly to cure the ills or leftovers of his predecessor.Supposedly to unite the country.Supposedly to be President of all the people.Since he's done NONE of that, a reasonable person would conclude that, to date, the President has failed to do what he was elected to do, said he'd do if elected, and or both.The key there is reasonable person.That pretty much excludes 'progressives' who are too vested in wanting to change things that work into things that don't .We should NEVER again elect anybody for any reason other than to fill the job adequately. Never again to just satisfy political correctness.Never again just because someone talks a good game, but has never even been on the field of play in any capacity other than press box announcer.Doing such has made a Royal Bigger Mess of this country in short order, and we should NEVER, repeat NEVER, do it again.

But, the same suspects stand poised and slobbering at the bit to do exactly that.Reasonable?Heck, when it comes to 'progressives', I'd be happy for simple sanity to rear it's head on occassion...

I fully expected that whether Obama or McCain were elected that we'd be disappointed in what we had. I fully expected that whether Obama or Romney were elected that we'd be disappointed in what we had. I've been around long enough to know that politicians almost always promise too much and deliver too little. Are you telling me that you believed the campaign rhetoric?

If you want sanity, with the bunch we have in DC today, between the elected officials, the staff, and the lobbyists, you'd best be really good at holding your breath, because it's going to take a bunch of highly gifted breath holders to wait out the insanity rampant in the seat of our government. I'm afraid that with the current crowd in charge, deadlock is probably our best friend. Unless you're an insider, neither side has a plan that's going to prove beneficial to any of us, and they're probably both equally detrimental, albeit in different ways.

I think everyone on here understands that you would have fully expected anyone else to have done just as badly as Obama. You're constantly expressing that opinion thereby stating that Obama just hasn't had the opportunity.

Two things that are undeniable. One, Obama was elected with absolutely no legislative accomplishments or business experience that would have provided the experience necessary to lead this country. Two, Mitt Romney had both the business experience and knowledge and the legislative background of working with both sides.

Obama also had two years during which he had complete control of both the House, the Senate, and the White House. What he delivered with that Holy Grail is the worst, most expensive, most inept piece of one-party legislation this country has ever seen.

If Obama were so detrimental, some political machine formed just for the goal of destroying his political career would have found something to expose the President of doing, or not doing. The Clinton chasers were relentless, yet what he did was not of detriment to the legislative process, not really. Morally, yes.

So, bvresident, gecroix and other disillusioned electorate. How will you go about catapulting his exit as President before Hillary gets elected in 2016? [crickets chirp] I think you're gonna have to sit tight and enjoy the ride, similar to a nephew who has to stay in your rent house for another several months. Don't cry [sad]

No, I just wouldn't have expected to see them accomplish the key things they professed, and if they did, we'd be second-guessing whether they should have.

I'd like to think that had I been in Obama's position 4 years ago, when the Republicans on the committee decided they wouldn't get behind the ACA legislation, I would have requested that everyone take a step back and work on getting broad support. The contention this one law has supported is probably the biggest reason that very little memorable legislation has moved since. There may very well be legislation that needed to be rammed through with only single party support, but I don't think this was it.

Because of all the bad attitudes in both houses of Congress in the wake of Obama's first term, I'm not sure that Romney would have been able to get much support for whatever key economic legislation he would have proposed. I fully expect that the Democrats in the Senate would have really dug in if Romney was able to gut the ACA. These days, we aren't dealing with rational people on Capitol Hill. They're all a bunch of spoiled brats throwing tantrums because they aren't getting their way.

Let's just start with sanity in the 'progressive' voters who were responsible for sending their 'fundamental changers' to DC.When a vapor recovery unit is all upset, you start at the front end of it, if you want to cure the problem, and work your way along to the end.Works the same way in politics...

Now, to be fair and balanced, I must admit that there is a flip side to this story of POTUS' to-date having failed at the jobs he was elected to do, though that is demonstrably clear to even a Blind Lemon.You see, he has been a RESOUNDING SUCCESS at the jobs he actually intended to do, but just didn't bother to let those cats out of the bag until 'after the election'.The second time, though, shame on the voters for ignoring it....SUCCEEDED in dividing the nation even further, much further, than it was.SUCCEEDED in running up twice the amount of additional debt in half the time as the previous record holder.SUCCEEDED in lowering this county's standing among the world's nations.SUCCEEDED in PO'g our only ally in the Middle East, and aiding the worst actors there to keep building nukes.SUCCEEDED in letting Iraq go back to seed, thereby wasting American soldier's efforts and blood there.SUCCEEDED in warning our Afghan adversaries of time and place of our retreat. See effect above.SUCCEEDED in 'fundamentally changing' the nation into one of dependency on government.SUCCEEDED into utterly screwing up the best health care system in the world.SUCCEEDED in setting new records for cronyism and special favors on a kingly level.SUCCEEDED in convincing millions more that they have a 'right' to take what other people have that they want, without working for it.SUCCEEDED in politicizing the IRS on a level greater than Nixon did.SUCCEEDED in politicizing the Dept. of Justice completely.SUCCEEDED in throwing more taxpayer money down 'green' ratholes than all who have gone before combined.SUCCEEDED in turning the American 4th estate into little more than backside kissing toadies willing to trade objectivity for PC and dogma.SUCCEEDED in getting really ignorant people to think of 'Congress' as nothing but one Party...his enemy.SUCCEEDED in ignoring whatever laws he wants to ignore...oath of office being just a triviality to be forgotten.SUCCEEDED in making my two typing fingers tired listing his successes, of which the number is legion beyond the piddling few above...YES, depending on one's point of view, a GREAT SUCCESS.Just depends on the viewers.....[rolleyes]